Back
1996 Supreme(HP) 183
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
R.L.KHURANA
SATSANG SABHA, AKHARA BAZAR, KULLU - Appellant
Versus
KARTAR KAUR - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 178 of 1991
Decided On : 09/30/1996
Mr. M.V. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner:Land lord. Mr. Balwant Kukreja, Advocate for the respondent: tenant. Editorial Note: Since the judgment remained un :reported is being reported late. Courtsey Mr Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate.
The post office is normally the agent of the remitter in the case of money orders and continues to be so until the money is handed over to the payee.
Headnote:
HP URBAN RENT CONTROL ACT - SECTION 14(2)(I) - INTERPRETATION - VALIDITY OF TENDER - POST OFFICE AS AGENT OF REMITTER - EXTENSION OF STATUTORY PERIOD - MEANING OF AMOUNT DUE - APPLICABILITY OF SECOND PROVISO.
Fact of the Case:
Tenant failed to pay rent for the period November 1984 to July 1988. Landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. The Rent Controller allowed the petition and ordered the tenant to pay arrears of rent, costs, and interest within 30 days to avoid eviction. The tenant failed to pay within the stipulated time but claimed to have sent the money through money orders, which the landlord refused to accept. The tenant deposited the amount in court after the expiry of the 30-day period, claiming that the delay was due to a strike by treasury officials.
Finding of the Court:
1. The tenant failed to tender the arrears of rent, costs, and interest within the 30-day period as required by the second proviso to Section 14(2)(i) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. 2. The post office is normally the agent of the remitter in the case of money orders and continues to be so until the money is handed over to the payee. 3. The Rent Controller has no power to extend the statutory period of 30 days as laid down under the second proviso to Section 14(2)(i) of the Act. 4. The amount due under the second proviso to Section 14(2)(i) includes not only the arrears of rent which gave cause of action to file a petition for eviction but also the rent which accumulated during the pendency of the eviction petition.
Issues: 1. Whether the tenant validly tendered the arrears of rent, costs, and interest within the stipulated period. 2. Whether the post office acted as the agent of the tenant or the landlord in the case of money orders. 3. Whether the Rent Controller could extend the statutory period of 30 days for payment. 4. Whether the amount due under the second proviso to Section 14(2)(i) included only the arrears of rent or also the rent accumulated during the pendency of the eviction petition.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A valid tender requires the actual, present physical offer of money to the creditor. A mere offer to pay does not constitute a valid tender. 2. In the absence of an agreement to the contrary, rent has to be paid/tendered by the tenant to the landlord in cash. 3. The post office is normally the agent of the remitter and any person who chooses to use the agency of the post office for remitting the arrears of rent does so at his own risk. 4. The Rent Controller has no power to extend the statutory period of 30 days as laid down under the second proviso to Section 14(2)(i) of the Act. 5. The amount due under the second proviso to Section 14(2)(i) includes not only the arrears of rent which gave cause of action to file a petition for eviction but also the rent which accumulated during the pendency of the eviction petition.
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed. The impugned order of the Rent Controller was set aside, and the objection petition filed by the tenant under Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure, was dismissed. The Rent Controller was directed to proceed with the execution application in accordance with law.
R.L. Khurana, J.: The present revision petition has been directed against the order dated January 5, 1991, of the Rent Controller (Senior sub Judge), Kullu, allowing the objections of the respondent, under section 47, Code of Civil Procedure, and dismissing the execution petition of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is the owner of the tenanted premises, while the respondent is the tenant in respect thereof. The parties are hereinafter referred to as the "Landlord" and tenant, respectively hereinafter
3. The landlord on January 4,1989, filed a petition for the eviction of the tenant under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, on the ground of non-payment of rent for the period November 1984 to July 1988 at the rate of Rs. 20/- per month. The said petition was allowed by the Rent Controller on March 12, 1990 and an order of ejectment of the tenant from the tenanted premises came to be passed. It was stipulated that the eviction petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed if the tenant pays/deposit the arrears of rent alongwith costs assessed at Rs. 75/- and interest at the rate of 9% per annum on or before April 11, 1990, that is, within 30 days from the date of passing of the ejectment order.
4. On the failure of the tenant to pay/deposit the arrears of rent, costs and interest in terms of the ejectment order dated March 12, 1990, the landlord on June 12,1990, applied for the enforcement of the said order dated March 12,1990, by moving an execution application before the learned Rent Controller. Such application came to be registered as Education petition No. 43/x of 1990 on the files of the Rent Controller.
5. In response to the notice served upon him, the tenant put in appearance and preferred objections, under Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure. It was averred that the ejectment order dated march 12, 1990, was not executable inasmuch as the entire arrears of rent, costs and interest stood paid in terms of the conditions imposed in the order. The relevant pleadings in this regard as are set out in para 10 of the objection petition dated July 27, 1990, read: “……….True facts are that the petitioner had filed eviction petition on the ground of non-payment of rent and in which the learned Rent Controller Kullu vide order dated 12.10.90, had passed conditional order for the eviction of the respondent on the ground of non-payment of rent to the effect that the respondent is liable to pay rent of Rs. 900/- plus cost of Rs.75/- and interest at the rate of 9% per annum and as such the respondent should deposit the said amount of RS.900/- plus cost of Rs.75/- and interest at the rate of 9% per annum within a period of one month i.e. on or before 12.4.90, otherwise the respondent is liable to be evicted. However, in case if the aforesaid amount is paid or deposited within the said period, then the order for eviction is not legally enforceable. That after arranging necessary money, the respondent on 9.4.90, moved application before the Rent Controller with a prayer that she may be allowed and permitted to deposit a sum of Rs.1300/- towards the aforesaid arrears of rent, costs and interest. Though the amount to be deposited by the respondent was less than Rs. 1300/- but in order to avoid any future complication, she intended to deposit Rs.1300/-, which application was allowed by the learned Rent Controller Kullu and the respondent was directed to deposit the said sum in the Govt. Treasury, but the ministerial staff including the employees of the Treasury office, had observed strike with effect from 26.3.1990 to 15.4.1990, and as a result of which the challan filed by the respondent were not passed by the treasury, without which the money could not be deposited. Thereafter, the respondent taking further steps, sent the aforesaid amount of Rs.1300/- to the respondent through two money orders dated 9.4.90, i.e. well in time, but the aforesaid money orders were not received by the petitioner, who refused to acc
