Afzal Begum vs Guiana Samdani and Others

In this case, a question of interpretation of para 8, cl. 3(a) of the Hyderabad Rent Control Order has arisen. The rendering of the Urdu wording of that clause is that if after hearing the objections of the parties, the Controller is satisfied that the tenant has not paid the arrears of rent due or tendered the rent due by him, then he may order the eviction of the tenant. The Urdu wording which is equivalent to this clause is "VOH USKI ADAYI KE LIYE AMAADA YA TAYYAR NAHI HAI". It was argued before us that the word "AMAADA" or "TAYYAR" means that if an expression of a desire to pay the arrears of rent is made before the Controller that will be sufficient compliance of the wording of the clause and actual payment of tendering of arrears is not necessary. We are not prepared to agree with this contention.

The facts which have given rise to this revision petition which we have treated as a petition, are briefly as follows: The Respondent executed a registered rental agreement on 30th Parwardi 1354 Fasli in favour of the Petitioner, stating that he would pay a monthly rent of Rs. 30 on the first of each month. On the basis of this rental agreement, the Petitioner filed a suit before the Rent Controller on 13-6-1358 Fasli, stating that arrears of rent for a period of 3 years and 5 months were due and that they not having been paid, the tenant should be evicted and arrears ordered to be paid. On 25-7-1358-Fasli the Respondent filed the written statement denying the execution of the Rent Deed and stated that he is not the tenant of the Petitioner and made several other allegations stating that the house really belonged to one Saheb Begum, who had mortgaged the same with the Petitioner and that the so-called rent was really the interest due towards the mortgage-money, which was not allowed under the law. While the case was pending before the Rent Controller, the Petitioner filed a suit on 4-8-1358 Fasli in the Court of Small Causes for arrears of rent for three years, In his written statement in that Court, the Respondent again denied that he was a tenant. The Small Cause Court decreed the Petitioner''s suit on 27-12-1358 Fasli for Rs. 1,080/- and costs. A revision petition was filed against that decree in the High Court on 17-1-1950 and the High Court rejected the revision petition observing that it was not for the Respondent to raise the question of mortgagor and mortgagee and their relations ''inter se,'' as he was only a tenant. After the rejection of the said revision petition by the High Court, the Respondent deposited the decretal amount in Court on 22-1-1950.

It is now alleged on the basis of this payment that this must be construed as amounting to readiness of the Respondent to pay the amount and that though he has paid the amount long after the filing of the suit before the Rent Controller, it should be held that he had complied with the provisions of para 8, cl. 3(a) referred to above. We are clearly of the opinion that this is not a compliance of the above provision. What the provision means is that when the Rent Controller is ready to hear the objections of the parties, an actual tender of the money due should be made before him. We find in the written statement that has been filed before the Rent Controller that not only he did not tender the amount but he denied that he was a tenant and contended that the Petitioner could not receive the rent. This cantankerous attitude cannot be reconciled with willingness to pay. Under the circumstances we cannot hold that the provisions of the above para have been complied with. We are clearly of the opinion that he is a defaulter.

Shri Babu Ramdayal, the learned advocate for the Petitioner, raised another point. He argued that there was an amount of arrears of rent for 5 months due which he could not recover from the Respondent as having been time-barred, but for the purposes of assessing the question of tender of the rent duo, the Court should look into the fact of non-payment of this amount. We are of the opinion that there is great force in this argument. Shri Abul Wahid Onst. the learned advocate for the Respondent, stated that as the amount had become time-barred he was not bound to pay. However, it is not necessary to decide this question of non-payment of 5 months'' rent in view of our interpretation of para 8, cl 3(a). We, therefore, allow this writ petition quash the lower Court''s order and direct the eviction of the tenant.

The tenant today submitted an application We cannot entertain it and it is rejected.