Modi, J.—This is a defendants second appeal in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and electricity and water charges and ejectment, which has been decreed by both courts below.

2. The appeal raises on interesting question as to whether electricity or water charges are part and parcel of the rent payable by a tenant or not. If this question is answered in favour of the plaintiff, then the defendants eviction must be held to have been rightly decreed. But, if on the other hand, such charges cannot be included within the meaning of the expression "rent", then it is equally true that the decree for eviction passed by the courts below against the defendant could not be sustained. There is one other point raised in the appeal as regards the proper quantum of water-charges payable by the defendant to the plaintiff and that question will also have to be decided.

3. Now before I address myself to the consideration of the main question arising in this case, a few facts may be stated which must be accepted as having been correctly found for the purposes of this second appeal. It has been held that the defendant was a monthly tenant of the plaintiff since January, 1952, and that there was a fresh agreement between the parties commencing from June, 1958, according to which the rent payable by the defendant was settled at Rs. 25/- per mensem and that in addition the defendant was under a further liability to pay electricity charges according to the current consumed by him. So far, there is no trouble. As for water-charges it has been found that the defendant had made himself liable to pay a fixed charge of Rs. 3/-per mensem and this finding is being challenged before me as being illegal. On these findings, the trial court decreed the plaintiffs suit for arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 25/- per mensem from the 1st August, 1958, and for a sum of Rs. 87/8/- as electricity charges and for a further sum of Rs. 3/-per mensem as water charges. That court also decreed the suit for ejectment. This decree was upheld by the Civil Judge, Bikaner, on appeal by his judgment and decree dated the 12th August, 1961, which is now being challenged in this Court by a second appeal.

4. It may be stated at once that there is no dispute at this date so far as the decree for the arrears of rent is concerned; nor is there any dispute about the decree passed for electricity charges. The only other fact which it is relevant to mention at this stage is that, according to the courts below, after the fresh agreement had been entered into between the parties in June, 1958, the defendant had paid the rent as also water and electricity charges for the months of June and July, 1958, (See the receipt Ex. A-l in this connection) and that for the month of August, 1958, he had remitted a money-order for Rs. 25/- being the house rent plus a further sum of Rs. 6.50 nP. on account of electric charges, but this money-order was refused. The defendants case further was that he was unable to send the water charges for the month of August because he was required to pay the same according to the bill received from the plaintiff, and the latter had not sent it to him. It is well established in this Court that if the defendant makes a valid tender of the rent payable by him for a particular month and the plaintiff refuses to accept the same, then it is not for him to go on remitting rent for the further months, and in such a case the defendant cannot be held to be a defaulter. See Babu Ram Vs. Narayan Das(l). The ratio behind this view is that it is not the intention of the law that the tenant should be compelled to make useless offers to send money to the landlord by money-orders, which was bound to be refused.

5. Both courts below have, however, held that this was not a valid tender, inasmuch as the tenant had failed to send the water-charges along with the rent of Rs. 25/- due from him per month, their view being that the said charges were included in the term rent payable by the ten

Click Here to Read the rest of this document