PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
S.S.Dulat, I.D.Dua and D.K.Mahajan JJ.
Rullia Ram Hakim Rai
Versus
S.Fateh Singh S.Sham Sher Singh
Civil Review No. 128 of 1960,
Decided On : NOVEMBER 30, 1961
PUNJAB URBAN RENT RESTRICTION ACT - SECTION 13(2)(I) - INTERPRETATION - ARREARS OF RENT - LIMITATION - MEANING AND SCOPE.
Fact of the Case:
A tenant was sought to be evicted for being in arrears of rent. The landlord claimed rent from September 1948 to April 1959, a period of nearly 11 years. The tenant deposited rent for three years from April 1959, which was the first date of hearing. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority held that this was not a compliance with Section 13(2)(i) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (the Act). The tenant filed a revision petition in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the tenant was required to deposit all the arrears of rent, irrespective of whether they were within or outside the period of limitation. The Court interpreted Section 13(2)(i) of the Act and held that the expression "arrears of rent" in the proviso to the section included even the amount of rent the realization of which may be barred by the law of limitation.
Issues: Whether the tenant was required to deposit only the arrears of rent that were within the period of limitation or all the arrears of rent, including those beyond the period of limitation, to avoid eviction under Section 13(2)(i) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the expression "arrears of rent" in the proviso to Section 13(2)(i) of the Act included all rent that is not paid irrespective of the fact its recovery is barred by the law of limitation. The Court relied on the following reasoning: * The language of Section 13(2)(i) does not limit the arrears of rent to those that are legally recoverable. * The object of the proviso is to give the tenant an opportunity to stay in the premises irrespective of his default if the tenant on the first hearing pays the rent due or tenders the arrears of rent. * The law of limitation does not extinguish the arrears of rent which are beyond the period of limitation and they are all the time due from a tenant and are owing to the landlord. * The Legislature was not prohibiting the recovery of rents which may be time barred but which the tenant is willing to pay or has to pay in certain eventuality as in the present case to save himself from eviction.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the tenant's revision petition and held that the tenant was required to deposit all the arrears of rent, including those beyond the period of limitation, to avoid eviction under Section 13(2)(i) of the Act.
Mahajan, J.
1. This matter originally came up before me and in view of the importance of the question. I referred it to a Division Bench. The matter was then placed before a Division Bench consisting of Dua J. and myself. In view of certain decisions of this Court under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, the matter was then reference to a Full Bench and that is how the matter has been placed before us today.
2. The only question that requires determination depends on the true construction of Section 13(2) (i) of the Estate Punjab Urban Rent Registration Act (III of 1949)--hereinafter to be referred to as the Act--or in other words the question that requires determination is whether a tenant who is sought to be ejected because he is in arrears of rent can avoid ejectment by only tendering the arrears that are within the period of limitation or has he to tender all the arrears of rent whether they are within or outside the period of limitation?
3. The facts of the present case now may briefly be stated. An application for ejectment of the petitioner-tenant was made on the ground that he was in arrears of rent. The petition was made under Section 13(2)(i) of the Act. The landlord averred that rent was due from the petitioner-tenant from the 1st of September 1948, to the 18th of April, 1959. In other words the rent in arrears was for a period of nearly 11 years. It is common ground that the rent for the period is due. The tenant on the first date of hearing deposited the rent which was for three years from the 18th of April, 1959. Objection was taken by the landlord that this was no compliance with the provisions of Section 13(2)(i) of the Act. This objection prevailed with the Rent Controller as well as on appeal with the Appellate Authority. The tenant has filed a revision petition in this Court under Section 15(5) of the Act against the order of the Appellate Authority. This petition will not be disposed of by this order.
4. Before dealing with the merits of the matter, it will be proper to examine and set out, where necessary, the relevant provisions of the Act Section 4 of the Act provides the procedure for the determination of fair rent. Section 5 provides for the increase in fair rent in certain circumstances. Section 6 prohibits any claim by the landlord in excess of the fair rent. Section 8 provides the procedure for recovery of rent charged by the landlord in excess of the fair rent and is in these terms:-
-
"8. (1) Where any sum has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act been paid which sum is by reason of the provisions of this Act irrecoverable, such sum shall, at any time within a period of six months after the date or the payment, or in the case of a payment made before the commencement of this Act, within six months after the commencement thereof, be recoverable by the tenant by whom it was paid or his legal representative from the landlord who received the payment or his legal representative, and may without prejudice to any other method of recovery be deducted by such tenant from any rent payable within such six months by him to such landlord.
(2) In this section the expression legal representative has the same meaning as in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and includes also, in the case of joint family property, the joint family of which the deceased person was a member."
Section 13 enumerates the grounds available to the landlord for the eviction of the tenant. In the instant case we are concerned with the first ground and it is for this reason that I am merely reproducing the relevant part of Section 13 which is in the following terms:-
- "13. (2) A landlord who seeks to evict his meant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the applicant, satisfied- (i) that the tenant has not paid to Learned the rent due by him in respect of the building of rented land within f
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.