Kuldip Singh Anand vs Nanak Singh and Another

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is tenant''s petition against whom eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below.

Nanak Singh landlord and his wife Smt. Charanjit Kaur sought the ejectment of their tenant Kuldip Singh Anand on the sole ground of non-payment of arrears of rent with effect from November, 1979, at the rate of Rs. 350/- per mensem. The application was filed on 13th June, 1980. On the first date of hearing Kuldip Singh tenant paid the arrears of rent from November 1979 to September, 1980, along with interest and costs as assessed by the Rent Controller. The landlords accepted the said deposit by making the following statement:-

It is stated that the rent of the demised premises amounting to Rs. 3990/- is received under protest as the same is short from Kuldip Singh tenant of the demised premises.

On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issue:-

Whether the tender is valid.

The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the tender was made by Kuldip Singh as Honorary Manager of Rose Marry Public School, whereas according to the landlords the tenant was Kuldip Singh in his individual capacity and, therefore, the tender made by Kuldip Singh as Honorary Manager was not valid. Consequently, eviction order was passed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority maintained the said eviction order. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has filed this petition in this Court.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the only objection to the tender made by the landlords was that it was short. They never objected at that time that the tender was not made by the tenant himself. Thus, argued the learned Counsel, the whole approach of the authorities below in this behalf was wrong and illegal. In case Kuldip Singh, who was Honorary Manager of Rose Marry Public School, tendered the rent as such, then proper issue should have been framed. In any case the tender could not be held to be invalid on that account.

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the landlords submitted that since the tender was made by Kuldip Singh not in his individual capacity but as Manager of Rose Marry Public School, therefore, the tender made by him was not valid. In support of his contentions, he referred to Ram Gopal v. Om Parkash (1963) 65 P. L. R. 1112.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record. I find force in the contention raised on behalf of the tenant. The approach of the authorities below in this behalf is wholly wrong, illegal and misconceived. Admittedly, the tender was made on the first date of hearing by Kuldip Singh. It was immaterial whether he tendered the rent in his individual capacity or as Honorary Manager of Rose Marry Public School. If the dispute was that he was using the premises for a purpose other than the one for which it was let out, then separate issue should have been claimed, but that was never the case of the landlords set up in the ejectment application. When admittedly Kuldip Singh was the tenant, then it is immaterial as to what position was held by him. In a similar situation, it was held by this Court in M/s Kirpa Ram and Sons, Rewari v. Sural Bhan 1979 (1) R. C. J. 250., that where in an ejectment application filed by the landlords seeking eviction of the tenant from a building on the ground of non-payment of rent, the tenant had tendered the arrears of rent etc. on the first date of hearing describing himself as the Manager of the joint Hindu firm, of which he was found to be the owner in his personal capacity, the tender made by the tenant was held to be valid. The judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the landlord''s i. e. Ram Gopal and others'' case (supra) has no applicability to the facts of the present case. In that case a stranger was joined by the tenants while making tender on the first date of hearing, but there is no such position in the present case.

Since in the ejectment application, non-payment of arrears of rent was the only ground and the same were tendered on the first date of hearing by Kuldip Singh, no eviction order could be passed.

Consequently, this petition succeeds, the impugned orders are set aside and the ejectment application is dismissed with costs throughout.