Back
1974 Supreme(Raj) 42
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : B.P. Beri, P.N. Shinghal, D.P. Gupta
Martin & Harris Pvt.Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Prem Chand - Respondent
F.B. Civil Reference in Civil Revision No. 173 of 1973
Decided On : 03/07/1974
Appearance :
C.K. Garg and S.R. Bhandari, for the Appellant
N.M. Kasliwal and N.K. Jain, for the Respondents
It is not necessary for the tenant to tender the rent each month to the landlord and obtain his refusal before depositing the rent in Court under Section 19-A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950.
Headnote:
RENT CONTROL - DEPOSIT OF RENT BY TENANT - TENDER OF RENT TO LANDLORD - NECESSITY - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 19-A OF THE RAJASTHAN PREMISES (CONTROL OF RENT & EVICTION) ACT, 1950.
Fact of the Case:
The tenant deposited rent under Section 19-A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950, after the landlord refused to accept the rent. The landlord filed an application under Section 13 (6) of the Act praying that the tenant’s defence against eviction be struck off. The tenant answered the application saying that the landlord wanted to enhance the rent and that he had refused to accept the rent.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that it is not necessary for the tenant to tender the rent each month to the landlord and obtain his refusal before depositing the rent in Court under Section 19-A of the Act. The Court also held that the tenant is not required to raise the dispute about the rent deposited by him under Section 19-A on the first day of hearing and that he can do so even by his written statement later.
Issues: 1. Whether under Section 19-A of the Act it is necessary for the tenant every time before making a deposit of rent in Court to tender the same to the landlord and to have his refusal or once the landlord has refused the tender of rent, then for every subsequent deposit in Court the tenant will not be required to first tender the rent to the landlord and have it refused. 2. Whether even in a ‘case where rent has been deposited in Court under Section 19-A of the Act the tenant is required to make a fresh deposit of the rent in Court under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act on the first date of hearing or to Rajse a dispute about the payability of the rent on the first date of hearing.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The language of Section 19-A (2) of the Act is “any rent tendered by the tenant”. If the legislature had intended that the tenant should tender each month’s rent to the landlord and after obtaining his refusal deposit the refused rent in Court, there was no difficulty in saying so. 2. The purpose of Section 19-A of the Act is to ameliorate the lot of the tenants and to save them from harassment. A requirement that the tenant tender the rent each month to the landlord would frustrate this purpose. 3. The doctrine of tender does not justify repeated tender on the part of a tenant when his first tender has been refused. 4. The provisions of Section 13 (4) and (5) of the Act are independent provisions. While Section 13 (4) speaks of the first day of hearing, there is no such mention in Section 13 (5).
Final Decision: The Court answered the first question in the negative and the second question in the affirmative.
B.P. Beri, CJ.-M/s. Martin & Harris Private Limited is the tenant-defendant whose defence was struck off by the order of the learned Munsif , Jaipur City (West), by his order dated December 30, 1972, under Section 13 (61 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter called “the Act”). Feeling aggrieved by that order the tenant moved a revision-application before this Court. Kan Singh J., who heard the matter, on examination of the decided cases came to the conclusion that there was a conflict in the reported decisions of this Court and he has therefore, referred two Questions for the opinion of a larger Bench.
2. In order to appreciate the background, in which these two questions arise, it will be relevant to recall the broad facts of the case. The tenant took on lease a portion of the premises called “Khinduka Bhavan” situate in New Colony, Jaipur, for three years, by means of a registered lease-deed dated August 1, 1963, on a monthly rent of Rs. 200/-. Another portion of the same premises was taken on lease by the same tenant on June 1. 1966 at the rate of Rs. 180/-per month. The landlord’s case, as disclosed in the plaint, is that the rent amounting to Rs. 1,200/-for the period beginning on November 1. 1970 and ending on April 30, 1971 of the portion taken on lease in the year 1963 had fallen in arrears and, therefore, he was entitled to evict the tenant. The landlord had impleaded the tenant-company at Calcutta and also its office at Jaipur as two distinct defendants. On August 31, 1971, the first date of hearing, a copy of the plaint was given to the defendant-company with the Calcutta address. On September 15, 1971, the tenant filed the written statement denying that any rent had fallen in arrears and contended that because the landlord had refused to accept rent since August. 1969 the tenant was depositing rent under Section 19-A of the Act for both the portions of the premises in the Court and the landlord was not entitled to a decree for eviction, The landlord, however, moved an application under Section 13 (6) of the Act praying that the tenant’s defence against eviction be struck off . The tenant answered the application saying that the landlord wanted to enhance the rent: that he had refused to accept the cheque dated August 23. 1969 representing the rent which was sent to him; that the landlord refused to accept the rent for September 1969 which the tenant had sent by means of a money order in the sum of Rs. 426.85 and therefore, the tenant deposited the rent for August, September and October. 1969 in the Court under Section 19-A of the Act and he thereafter also deposited the rent for the subsequent months in the Court and his defence was, as such, not liable to be struck off under Section 13 (6) of the Act.
3. Thelearned Munsif accepted the landlord’s application on the ground that the tenant could not take advantage of the deposit of rent in the Court under Section 19-A of the Act because the tenant had not tendered each month’s rent first to the landlord and had not on his refusal deposited the same in the Court under Section 19-A of the Act and therefore the tenant could not escape the consequences contemplated by
Section 13 (8) of the Act. Aggrieved by this order, the tenant came up in revision to this Court. Kan Singh J., has now referred to a larger Bench the following two Questions:-
1. Whether under Section 19-A of the Act it is necessary for the tenant every time before making a deposit of rent in Court to tender the same to the landlord and to have his refusal or once the landlord has refused the tender of rent, then for every subsequent deposit in Court the tenant will not be required to first tender the rent to the landlord and have it refused. In other words, which of the two cases, namely 1959 RLW 81 or 1970 RLW 315 lays down the correct law?
2. Whether even in a ‘case where rent has been deposited in Court under Section 19-A of the Act the tenant is required
