Smt. Champa Devi vs Jagdish Parshad

Naresh Chander Jain, J.—The Petitioner-landlord filed an application for eviction of the Respondent-tenant on the ground of arrears of rent. The non-payment of arrears of rent which has been alleged against the tenant is from July 15, 1976, to September 14, 1976. On the first date of hearing the Rent Controller after making the assessment of rent, costs and interests asked the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 171/- only. Since 15 days'' time was to be allowed to the tenant for payment of rent, the case was ordered to be fixed by the Rent Controller for October 14, 1976. However, the Presiding Officer was not present on that date and the case was adjourned for October 21, 1976. The Presiding Officer again was not present. The case was again adjourned to November 8, 19''/6, on which date the amount assessed was deposited as the landlord refused to accept the same.

As has been noted above, both the authorities below have dismissed the ejectment application of the Petitioner landlord.

The present revision petition is bound to fail on two counts and this can be done without going into the merits of the case It has been held by this Court in Dev Karan Dass v. Hanuman Parshad and Ors. 1982 (1) R.L.R. 64, that if the application continued to be adjourned from time to time because of the absence of the Presiding Officer, and the Presiding Officer became available after some time and the amount was tendered on that date it was a valid tender. The ratio of the ruling is that the party cannot be allowed to suffer for the mistake of the Court. The ratio laid down by J.V. Gupta, J. in the aforementioned case is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. When the Presiding Officer became available after adjournments, the tenant tendered the rent and that was sufficient compliance.

This revision petition has to fail yet on another ground. In this case, the tender was admittedly made when the Presiding Officer was holding the Court on November 8, 1976. Issues were framed on August 30, 1977 i.e. much after the making of the tender. In these circumstances, it has been held by their Loruships of the Supreme Court in Sham Lal (dead) by: L. Rs. v. Atma Nand Jain Sabha (Regd). Dal Bazar (1987) 91 P.L.R. 1, that the date of hearing in a rent case would be the one on which issues are framed. Since the rent has been paid much before first date of hearing, no order of ejectment can be passed against the Respondent-tenant.

In view of what has been observed above, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.