Judgment

SARKARIA, J.:- This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment, dated Oct. 15, 1965, of the Punjab High Court at Chandigarh.

2. The appellant is the landlord; the respondent is the tenant. The appellant made an application on May 2, 1964 under Sec. 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act. 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rent Act") before the Rent Controller. Bhiwani for ejectment of the tenant-respondent from the shop in dispute on the ground that the respondent had failed to pay rent for the period from Feb. 1, 1964 to March 31, 1964 in addition to house-tax and water-tax. According to the appellants application, the respondent was to pay Rs. 50/- p. m. as rent.

3. On May 25, 1964. which was the date of first hearing, the respondent made an application to the Rent Controller, stating that he had deposited Rs. 109.37 np. in the Government Treasury under the orders of the Court of the Rent Controller-cum-Senior Sub-Judge on April 14, 1964 towards the rent for the months of February and March 1964 and thereafter a further amount towards the rent of April 1964, under the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934 (hereinafter referred to as the "Relief Act") to the credit of the landlord, about which notice had been issued to the later. Along with that application, he further tendered Rs. 26.75 np. (including Rs. 0.75 towards interest, Rs. 25/- towards cost and Rs. 3/- for over-head expenses) and deposited the same in the court to the credit of the appellant on April 14, 1964, because the latter declined to accept the amount tendered saving that the tender was not in compliance with the proviso to sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 13 of the Rent Act.

4. In his written statement, the respondent pleaded that the landlord-appellant had brought as many as 4 eviction application against him within a period of two years and all those applications had been dismissed, that the present application was not sustainable because the respondent was not in arrears; that he had tendered the rent month by month as it fell due, in the presence of respectable persons but the landlord had declined to accept the tenders being motivated by mala fides. He further pleaded that the landlord had due notice of the deposit of rent for the three months in question before filing the present application for eviction.

5. The Rent Controller did not frame any issue, nor die he call upon the respondent to adduce evidence regarding his plea that he had tendered the rent due every months according to law but the landlord had, from mala fide motive. declined to accept the same. The Rent Controller, however, held that the rent deposited by the tenant to the credit of the landlord under Sec. 31 of the Relief Act, was a valid tender and payment to the landlord for the purpose of S. 13 (2) of the Rent Act and dismissed the landlords application for eviction. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, the landlord preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, who following the judgment of the High Court in Mam Chand v. Chhotu Ram, (1964) 66 Pun LR 93, dismissed the appeal. The landlords revision was also dismissed by the High Court on Oct. 15, 1965.

6. Hence this appeal.

7. Shri Andley, learned counsel for the appellant, has sought to make out these points :

(1) The word tender in the proviso to sub-section (2) to Sec. 13 of the Rent Act means physical production of the required amount before the Rent Controller at the first hearing of the case, so that the landlord can immediately take it. Since this was not done, the amount physically offered being exclusive of the arrears of rent, there was no valid tender within the contemplation of the aforesaid proviso.

(2) Deposit of the rent due in court to the credit of the landlord under Section 31 of the Relief Act, is not a valid tender within the meaning of S. 13 (2) of the Rent Act. Reliance has been placed in this connection on the decision of this Court in Shri Vidya Prachar Trust v. Basant Ram, (1970) 1 SC