Sada Nand vs Saroj Devi

D.S. Tewatia, J.—Saroj Devi, respondent herein, (hereinafter referred us the landlady) sought ejectment of Sada Nand, petitioner herein (hereinafter referred as the tenant) from the disputed premises which consist of a Kotha and a Verandah inter alia on two grounds, i.e., (i) she needed the premises for her personal bona fide use and occupation, and (ii) that the tenant had fallen in arrear so far as the Kotha is concerned to the extent of Rs. 48/- at the rate of Rs. 4/- per mensem with effect from July 1, 1971 to June 30, 1972 and in regard to Verandah to the tune of Rs. 448/- at the rate of Rs. 7/- per mensem wish effect from March 1, 1967 to June 30, 1972. The learned Rent Controller allowed the application on both the grounds and ordered ejectment of the tenant. On appeal, at the instance of the tenant the Appellate Authority sustained the order of the Rent Controller on the ground of non-payment of arrears, for it found that the tender made on the first date of hearing was inadequate and thus invalid, and concurred with the order of ejectment although on the other ground pertaining to the personal necessity of the landlady it had reversed the finding of the Rent Controller.

Mr. Bindra, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the showing of the landlady herself in the petition the Kotha as also the verandah were leased out to the tenant by two separate tenancies. Since the Appellate Authority had treated the tenancies regarding Kotha and the Verandah as one and had viewed the adequacy of the tender of the arrears on the first date of hearing from that angle, so its decision on this point is clearly vitiated. Learned counsel maintained that if it is found that the tender made by the tenant on the first date of hearing was adequate tender in regard to either the tenancy of Kotha of the tenancy of Verandah, then he cannot be ejected from that portion or the disputed premises. In this case the tender made by the tenant was of a sum of Rs. 52/- towards rent of 13 months, Rs. 25/- as costs and Rs. 1/-, as interest on the arrears of rent.

A perusal of the petition and the rent note Exhibit P-1 leaves no manner of doubt that while Kotha was already on rent with the tenant at the rate of Rs, 4/- per mensem, the Verandah was given on rent at the rate of Rs. 7/- per mensem with effect from March, 1, 1967 vide rent note Exhibit P-1. So unlike the Appellate Authority the learned Rent Controller was right in treating the Kotha and the Verandah in possession of the tenant as a result of two separate tenancies. If that be the case, then it is open to the Court to see as to whether the tender made by the tenant is adequate and valid regarding one of the two tenancies. The learned Rent Controller found the tender inadequate even regarding the tenancy pertaining to the Kotha, the rent whereof was Rs. 4/-per mensem. He found the tender inadequate and thus invalid for the reason that it was short in the matter of interest on the arrears of rent by 60 paise.

It has been urged on behalf of the tenant that by no stretch of imagination the tender in question could be considered inadequate so for as it pertain to the tenancy regarding the Kotha. The amount tendered by way of arrears of rent was Rs. 52 - instead of Rs. 48/-, although the stipulation made by the tenant was that it was for 13 months instead of 12 months, In order to save himself from ejectment the tenant was required to tender only Rs. 48/- plus costs plus interest and not the rent for 13 months. So inadequacy in the amount of interest can be easily met from the amount deposited under head of ''arrears'' of rent'', which exceeded the actual arrears under that head which was Rs. 48/-.

Counsel for the landlady on the contrary urged that anything deposited under the head of ''arrears of rent'', which exceeded the actual arrears of rent that was due on the date of application, had to be ignored and could not be taken into consideration to see as to whether the tender made was adequate.

I am of the view that the tender made by the tenant in so far as it relates to the tenancy concerning the Kotha is adequate, for the tenant was not required under the law to tender future rent to save his tenancy. Since he had deposited Rs. 52/- instead of Rs. 48/- towards arrears of rent, either deliberately or under a mistaken notion of law, the amount is there and any shortage in the amount of interest on the arrears of rent which were only Rs. 48./- stands being taken account of in ample measure. Hence it could not be held that the tenant incurred ejectment on the ground of invalid tender in regard to the Kotha.

As regards the Verandah, obviously he had been in arrears of rent and had not tendered the arrears on the first date of hearing. He is, therefore, to be ejected from the Verandah.

Mr. Behl counsel for the land-lady presses his claim for ejectment on the ground of personal requirement. He cited Rati Lal Bros v. The Govt. of Mysore AIR 1951 Mys. 66, Shri Kishan and others v. Ghanesham Dass (1962) 64 P.L.R. 1141, Ram Swami Trigunanand v. Mahavir Dal of Kalka (1963) 65 P.L.R. 250, in support of his submission that the learned Appellate Authority wrongly considered the expression "occupation" as synonimous with the term ''residence''. But before going into this question, I have to take into consideration the objection raised on behalf of the tenant that the landlady had not pleaded in the petition "that she was not in occupation of another residential building in the urban area concerned and had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of this Act in the said urban area". Since the Full Bench of this Court, Banke Ram v. Smt. Sarasti Devi (1977) 79 P.L.R. 112, has held that the pleading of the aforesaid facts is a condition precedent for claiming ejectment on the ground of personal bona fide requirement, so where these are not pleaded the petition is to be rejected on that ground alone. However, this Court has been consistently permitting the petitioner landlords to amend the petitions in order to bring their pleadings in conformity with the requirement of law. So the landlady, respondent herein, is permitted to do so. With the result that the petition is sent back to the Rent Controller, who would permit both the parties to lead evidence after the necessary amendments are affected by the petitioner (landlady) and a reply thereto is made by the tenant. The Rent Controller shall go into the requirement of the landlady only in regard to the Kotha, so far as the Verandha is concerned, the tenant stands already ejected. The parties are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 16th January, 1978. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.