The court clarified that a tenant's tender of rent is valid even if it does not cover the entire arrears if the arrears for a period were already deposited in an earlier ejectment application and withdrawn by the landlord, and the remaining arrears can be adjusted from rent paid in advance.

J.V.Gupta, J.

1. This is tenants petition against whom eviction orders had been passed by both the authorities below. The landlord Bhagwant Singh filed the ejectment application on 6th November, 1982 of his tenant Amrit Lal from the demised premises consisting of House No. 54-L, Model Town, Jalandhar City. It was on a monthly rent of Rs. 57/- per month. The ejectment of the tenant was sought, inter alia, on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent with effect from October 1, 1976, that the tenant has made additions and alterations in the demised premises and has thus materially impaired its value and utility. According to the landlord, the tenant has converted the verandah into a room and has provided door to House No. 77. He also constructed one bathroom by raising two walls. This bathroom is without any roof. The tenant has also converted the verandah and defunct latrine into one bigger room. He has also constructed another water closet towards house No. 77. The third ground was that the landlord needs the premises for his personal use and ocucpation and that of his family members. The accommodation already in his possession is insufficient. He does not possess any other residential house except the one situated at New Railway Road in which he is living at present. It has only two rooms which were insufficient for him, his wife and for his three married sons. He further stated that he has not vacated any residential building after the enforcement of the Act.

2. The stand taken by the tenant was that the rent for the period from October 1, 1976 to August, 1982 already stood deposited in the eralier ejectment application and thus he tendered rent at the rate of Rs. 57/- per month with effect from September 1, 1982 to January 31, 1983, along with Rs. 20/- as interest, and Rs. 30/- as costs. This tender was accepted by the landlord under protest. It was further averred that the petition was barred under Section 14 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, as the controversy between the parties has already been decided by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. Nothing new has happened since the decision of the earlier petition.

3. According to the tenant, he did not effect any additions or alterations in the property in dispute. The constructions already existed in the demised premises prior to the inception of the tenancy. The verandah was also closed with the door provided therein, even before the purchase of the premises by the petitioner in the year 1973. According to the tenant, new construction already existed and, therefore, he was not liable to ejectment on this ground. It was denied that the landlord bona fide required the premises in dispute for his own use and occupation. According to the tenant, the accommodation that is already in his occupation was sufficient to meet his requirement and that for his family. The learned Rent Controller found that the tenant did not tender the entire rent as contemplated under the Act and, therefore, the tender made was short and invalid. He further found that the tenant has effected material alterations impairing the value and utility of the demised premises. The question of bona fide requirement was also held in favour of the landlord. According to the learned Rent Controller after the termination of previous litigation the landlord required the demised premises bona fide for his own use and occupation. Consequently, the eviction order was passed on 26th August, 1987.

4. In appeal the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller so far as non-payment of arrears of rent and materially impairing the value and utility of the demised premises is concerned. However, on the question of bona fide requirement, the finding of the Rent Controller was reversed. Ultimately, the eviction order was maintained vide order dated 20th May, 1987. The learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner submitted that the arrears of rent with effect from