Parma Nand vs Shrimati Ram Lubhai

Dulat & P.C. Pandit, JJ.—This order will dispose of four connected revision petitions (Nos. 316 to 319 of 1963) filed by the tenants. They have arisen out of five applications filed by Smt. Ram Labhai against her tenants for their eviction from the premises in dispute. It may be mentioned that out of these, one of the tenants, namely, Sant Ram, has not come up in a revision to this Court. It appears that this lady had purchased the building in dispute, various portions of which were in possession of the petitioners, in a public auotion held by the Competent Officer on 4th, August,. 1956 under the provisions of the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951. The Sale in her favour was confirmed on 16th May, 1961 and the sale certificate was issued on 19th May, 1961. On 4th July 1961 the Assistant Custodian, Evacuee Property,. Ambala had issued notices directing the petitioners to attorn to Smt. Ram Labhai, who had purchased the entire building and to pay rent to her with effect from 4th August, 1956. On 27th October, 1961 she filed applications for ejectment of the petitioners on the ground of non-payment of rent.

These applications were contested by the petitioners on a number of grounds, but we are concerned only with one of them, namely, whether they had deposited the full amount of rent or not, because this was the only point that was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners before us.

On the pleadings of the parties, separate issues were framed in all the cases.

The Rent Controller passed orders of ejectment in all the cases on the ground that full rent had not been tendered by the petitioners.

Against this, the petitioners went in appeal to the Appellate Authority, who confirmed the decision of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeals. He found that Smt. Ram Labhai could not claim full title to the disputed premises from the date of auction arid the title could not relate back to that date even after the sale was confirmed. He, however, came to the conclusion that she did get an equitable interest or inchoate title in the disputed premises from the date of auction, that is, 4th August, 1956. Her right in this behalf was also recognised by the Assistant Custodian, Evacuee Property, vide his letter dated 4th July, 1961, mentioned above. She was, thus, entitled in law to the rent of the premises with effect from 4th August, 1956. Since it was conceded that if the arrears of rent had to be counted from the date of the auction-sale to the date of the eviction petition, the petitioners had not tendered the proper amounts, and they were, therefore, liable to eviction. With regard to the contention of the tenants that they were not required to deposit more than three years'' rent, because the rent was not recoverable under the law, it was held on the authority of the Full Bench decision in Rulia Ram v. S. Fateh Singh (1962) 64 P.L.R. 255, that a tenant could avoid ejectment by depositing all the arrears of rent, irrespective of the fact that a part of such arrears was beyond limitation and was not recoverable by means of a civil suit. It was further held that, except in the eviction petition filed against Motan Dass, petitioner in Civil Revision No. 318 of 1963, the tender of arrears of rent in the remaining ones was invalid, being conditional, because the tenants, while making the tender, requested the Rent Controller in writing that the amount should not be paid to the landlord before the decision of the eviction petitions. On this ground also they were liable to eviction.

Against these orders, the present revision petitions were filed in this Court.

On the preliminary hearing, while issuing notice, Capoor J. ordered that these revisions be heard with Civil Revision No. 330 of 1962 (Jaimal Singh v. Smt. Gini Devi), which had already been referred to a larger Bench by Falshaw C.J. That is how, all these cases have been placed before us for disposal.

After hearing the counsel the parties, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in these petitions. It is common ground that the property in dispute was purchased by the respondent in an open auction on 4th August 1956. The sale in her favour was confirmed on 16th May, 1961 and the sale certificate was later on issued on 19th May, 1961. On 4th July, 1961 the Assistant Custodian, Evacuee Property, Ambala, sent a notice to all the occupants of the property, including the present petitioners, informing them that the property in dispute had been purchased by Smt. Ram Labhai, present respondent, in a public auction held on 4th August 1956, and the sale in her favour had been confirmed on 16th May 1961. The sale certificate had been issued on 19th May 1961. They were, therefore, requested to make attornment in her favour and pay the rent to her from 4th August, 1956 onwards. The question whether the rights in the property passed to the respondent on the date of auction, that is, 4th August 1956, or on the date of confirmation of sale in her favour, that is, 16th May 1961, or on the date of issue of sale certificate, that is, 19th May 1961, does not arise for decision in this case. There is no manner of doubt that the occupants had either to pay the rent to the Custodian or the purchaser of this property, namely, the present respondent. Since it is conceded that the Custodian had informed all the occupants of this property, including the present petitioners to pay the rent to the respondent with effect from 4th August, 1956 onwards, as she had purchased the property, they were under an obligation to pay the same to her and she was entitled to receive it from them. She clearly came within the definition of the word ''landlord'' in section 2(c) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, which lays down that a ''landlord'' means any person for the time being entitled to receive rent in respect of any building whether on his own account or on behalf or for the benefit of any other person. The petitioners were, thus, liable to pay rent to the respondent from 4th August, 1956 onwards. Admittedly, this rent had not been paid by them even up to the first date of hearing in the case. They had got this intimation from the Custodian on 4th July 1961, that is, more than three months before the ejectment applications were filed and they could have easily tendered the entire arrears of rent on this date. Their plea, however, was that the respondent was only entitled to recover arrears of rent for three years prior to the institution of the ejectment petition, because the rest had become irrecoverable by lapse of time. So far as this matter is concerned, it has been settled by a Full Bench decision of this Court in Rulia Ram''s case1, where it was held that a tenant, who was sought to be ejected, because he was in arrears of rent, could avoid ejectment by depositing all the arrears of rent irrespective of the fact that part of those arrears was beyond limitation and could not be recovered. It was clearly laid down in this authority that the arrears of rent within the meaning of the proviso to section 13 (2) (i) of the Rent Act included even those arrears, which could not be recovered on account of limitation. Under these circumstances, they were liable to eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent.

The Appellate Authority has further found that, except in the case of Motan Dass petitioner in Civil Revision No. 318 of 1963, the tender of arrears of rent by the other three petitioners was not valid, because it was a conditional one. These petitioners, according to the Appellate Authority, while making the tender, had requested the Rent Controller in writing that the amount should not be paid to the landlord before" the decision of the eviction petitions. Reliance for this was placed on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Jiwan Mal v. Khushi Ram AIR 1953 P&H. 70, where basing the decision on Narain Das v. Abinash Chander AIR 1922 P.C. 347, the learned Judges held that a tender accompanied by a condition in the written statement that the amount should not be paid to the landlord till the decision of the eviction petition remained incomplete and imperfect and did not satisfy the requirements of the proviso to section 13(2)(1) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. Learned counsel for the petitioners admitted that he had nothing substantial to urge against this finding.

In view of what I have said above, these petitions fail and are dismissed. The petitioners, however, are allowed one month''s time from today to vacate the premises. In the peculiar circumstances of these cases, however, the parties are left to bear their own costs in this Court.