The power of the court to grant relief against forfeiture for non-payment of rent under Section 114 of the T.P. Act is not abrogated by the provisions of Section 5(1) Proviso (e) of the Rent Act in all cases. However, the tenant must fulfill the conditions precedent of Section 114, such as tendering the entire rent in arrear, interest, and costs, and providing a reasonable explanation for any delay in paying the rent.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has exercised his forensic abilities to establish that the wholesome provisions contained in S.114 of the T.P. Act 1882, empowering the court, in lieu of making a decree for ejectment in case of forfeiture for non-payment of rent, to grant relief to the lessee against such forfeiture if the tenant pays or tenders to the lessor the rent in arrear together with interest thereon, is equally applicable in a suit to eject a tenant governed by the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. The learned counsel advanced the argument bearing in mind the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in V. Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal, AIR 1979 SC 1745, and the decision of this Court in L.P.A. 11 of 1976 disposed on 30-10-79, Ramesh Chandra Basak v. Deo Narain Prasad. It has been contended that the question posed has not been finally determined in any of the cases. The learned counsel submits that the Rent Control Act is a social legislation meant for the protection of the tenants as well as the landlords. Some of the provisions of the T.P. Act dealing with the rights and obligations of the landlords and the tenants have been abrogated wholly or partially by express words or necessary implications by "the Rent Act". However, there is nothing in "the State Act" to show that the power of the Court to grant relief under S.114, T. P. Act has been taken away. An extreme argument has been urged that the right of the lessee to the relief provided in S.114 has not been taken away by the State Act either expressly by necessary intendment. The learned counsel for the opposite party-landlord submits that the provisions of S.5 (1) Proviso (e) have clearly taken away "the right of a lessee" as well as "the power of the Court" contained in S.114 of the T. P. Act. The learned counsel submits that the provisions have been made in the Rent Act to deposit the rent when the landlord refuses to accept the lawful rent offered by his tenant, vide S.5 (4) of the Rent Act.

2. It is true that in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the lawful rent offered, the tenant is obliged, within a fortnight of its becoming due, to deposit in court such rent together with costs. When a tenant so deposits, he cannot be treated as a defaulter as contemplated under S.5(1) proviso (e) of the Rent Act. It is undoubtedly true that it is provided in the Rent Act that when a tenant offers the rent and his landlord refuses to accept the same, the tenant to avoid being treated as a defaulter, must deposit that rent in the manner provided under S.5(4) of the Rent Act. However, if a poor tenant cannot offer the rent to his landlord "within a fortnight of its falling due", on account of sudden illness or accident or being suddenly called upon to go out on urgent duty to places, say, Kashmir or Rajasthan or is forced to attend near and dear one suffering from illness or disease, and thereby fails to offer rent due to such unforeseen or accidental circumstances, should he be thrown out on the street or under the sky under such circumstances? Is it reasonable that the law-maker enacted the Rent Law oblivious of the need for such basic relief to such tenants ? It is true that ordinarily a tenant is obliged to offer rent when it becomes due, and, on refusal of the landlord to accept it, he is obliged to deposit it in Court in the manner prescribed under S.5(4) of the Rent Act. Nevertheless, if due to circumstances beyond his control or due to act of God or other compelling reasons he cannot offer the rent, though otherwise vigilant, should he be thrown out in open and under the sky for such unintentional omissions ? It is hard to believe that the law is so cruel and heartless, unless we hold that the relief against forfeiture for non-payment of rent has been abrogated to all intents and purposes by the Rent Act.

3. What I notice in the Rent Act is that when the landlord refuses to accept lawful rent, the tenant is bound to deposit i