Vinod Kumar and Another vs Ishwar Dayal

Alok Singh, J.—Present revision is preferred by the landlord - petitioners u/s 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), impugning the order dated 29.8.2008 passed by the Rent Controller, Hissar as well as the Judgment dated 20.8.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority, Hissar, whereby the Courts below have dismissed the eviction petition filed by the landlord petitioners herein.

Brief facts of the present case are that the landlord preferred an eviction petition against the tenant on the ground, inter alia, that the respondent is tenant of the petitioners and earlier the rent was Rs. 900/- per month plus house tax as per rent note dated 1.8.1981; fair rent has been fixed by the Rent Controller, Hissar as Rs. 119/- per month w.e.f. 21.2.1998; respondent is liable to be evicted on the ground that he is a bad paymaster and failed to pay rent despite repeated demands; rent and house tax with effect from 1.5.2003 till the date of filing the revision petition is outstanding against the tenant.

On notice, respondent appeared and filed written statement taking preliminary objection that only ground for seeking eviction in the present case is that the tenant is in arrears of rent; respondent has tendered arrears of rent within 15 days from the date of first hearing, however, respondent had filed an application seeking permission of the Court to tender house tax, which was allowed by the Court vide order dated 17.1.2008 and accordingly, respondent tendered arrears of house tax amounting to Rs. 4196.50. It is further alleged by the tenant that he has deposited Rs. 4796/- in excess while tendering the arrears of rent within 15 days from the date of service of summon.

Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent finding of fact that the respondent has paid entire amount of rent within 15 days from the date of service of summon. It is further observed by the Appellate Court that the tenant has deposited Rs. 4796/- in excess while tendering the rent, hence amount of arrears of house tax of Rs. 4196/- can be said to have been adjusted against the excess amount. The Appellate Court has further held that the tenant has moved the application before the trial Court in time seeking time to tender the arrears of house tax, which was allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 17.1.2008 and within the time fixed by the Rent Controller, entire arrears of house tax was paid on 25.1.2008. Both the Courts below dismissed the petition of the landlord for the eviction of the tenant.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners - landlord vehemently argued that the tenant should have tendered entire arrears of house tax amounting to Rs. 4196.50 alongwith the rent, which admittedly the tenant did not tender and thereafter moved an application seeking further time to deposit arrears of house tax, which was wrongly allowed by the Rent Controller vide order dated 17.1.2008. He further argued that the payment of arrears of house tax on 25.1.2008 pursuant to the illegal order dated 17.1.2008, cannot absolve the tenant from eviction. Learned Counsel for the petitioners - landlord further argued that so-called excess amount tendered by the tenant is his fault and he cannot take the benefit of his fault and cannot say that the excess amount be adjusted towards the house tax.

I am not inclined to accept the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners for the simple reason that entire arrears of rent was tendered by the tenant within 15 days from the date of service of summon. Not only this, tenant had tendered excess amount of Rs. 4796/-, hence the excess amount can very well be adjusted towards the arrears of house tax. Not only this, as per the observations made by the Appellate Court, entire arrears of house tax amounting to Rs. 4196.50 was paid by the tenant on 25.1.2008 pursuant to the order dated 17.1.2008 passed by the Rent Controller on the application moved by the tenant seeking time to make payment of arrears of house tax.

In view of the above observations, I do not find any justification to interfere with the order passed by both the Courts below.

Petition is dismissed.