Judgment

THAKKAR, J. :- One cannot conceive of a greater judicial sin than the sin of treating the oppressor and the oppressed on a par. Or that of rewarding the oppressor and punishing the oppressed whilst administering the law designed to protect the oppressed. We would be guilty of committing this sin if we uphold the view that the tenant who advances a loan to the landlord in order to secure the tenancy (in violation of the prohibition to do so embodied in the statute enacted for his benefit) is in pari delicto. And that the Court will not assist the tenant in claiming adjustment of the loan amount against the landlords claim for rent.

2. The lower appellate Court dismissed the respondent-landlords suit for eviction against the appellant-tenant holding that the tenant was not in arrears of rent. The following facts are not in dispute :-

(1) The tenant had advanced a sum of Rs. 2000/- under an agreement which inter alia contained a stipulation that the loan amount was to be adjusted against the rent which accrued.

(2) The amount so advanced by the tenant was sufficient to cover the landlords claim of arrears.

(3) If the loan amount was accordingly adjusted towards the rent which accr