The tender made by the tenant was adequate in regard to the tenancy concerning the Kotha, as the amount deposited under the head of 'arrears of rent' exceeded the actual arrears and could be used to cover the shortage in interest.

D.S.Tewatia, J.

1. Saroj Devi, respondent herein, (hereinafter referred as `the land-lady) sought ejectment of Sada Nand, petitioner here in (hereinafter referred as `the tenancy), from the disputed premises, which consist of a Kotha and a Verandah inter alia on two grounds i.e. (i) that she need the premises for her personal bona fide use and occupation, and (ii) that the tenant had fallen in arrear so far as the Kotha is concerned to the extend of Rs. 48 at the rate of Rs. 4 per mensem with effect from July 1, 1971 to June 30, 1972 and in regard to Verandah to the tune of Rs. 448 at the rate of Rs. 7 per mensem with effect from March 1, 1967 to June 30, 1972. The learned Rent Controller allowed the application on both the grounds and ordered ejectment of the tenant. On appeal, at the instance of the tenant, the Appellate Authority sustained the order of the Rent Controller on the ground of non-payment of arrears, for it found that the tender made on the first date of hearing was inadequate and thus invalid, and concurred with the order of ejectment, although on the other ground pertaining to the personal necessity of the landlady it had reversed the finding of the Rent Controller.

2. Mr. Bindra, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the showing of the landlady herself in the petition, the Kotha as also the Verandah were leased out to the tenant by two separate tenancies. Since the Appellate Authority had treated the tenancies regarding Kotha and the Verandah as one had viewed the adequacy of the tender of the first date of hearing from that angle, so its decision on this point is clearly vitiated. Learned counsel maintained that if it is found that the tender made by the tenant on the first date of hearing was adequate tender in regard to either the tenancy of Kotha or the tenancy of Verandah, then he cannot be ejected from that portion of the disputed premises. In this case the tender made by the tenant was of a sum of Rs. 52 towards rent of 13 months, Rs. 25 as costs and Re. 1 as interest on the arrears of rent.

3. A perusal of the petition and the rent-note Exhibit P-1 leaves no manner of doubt that while Kotha was already on rent with the tenant at the rate of Rs. 4 per mensem, the verandah was given on rent at the rate of Rs. 7 per mensem with effect from March 1, 1967 vide rent-note Exhibit P-I. So unlike the Appellate Authority the learned Rent Controller was right in treating the Kotha and the Verandah in possession of the tenant as a result of two separate tenancies. If that be the case, then it is open to the Court to see as to whether the tender made by the tenant is adequate and valid regarding one of the two tenancies. The learned Rent Controller found the tender inadequate even regarding the tenancy pertaining to the Kotha, the rent where of was Rs. 4 per mensem. He found the tender inadequate and thus invalid for the reason that it was short in the matter of interest on the arrears of rent by 60 paise.

4. It has been urged on behalf of the tenant that by no stretch of imagination the tender in question could be considered inadequate so far as it pertain to the tenancy regarding the Kotha. The amount tendered by way of arrears of rent was Rs. 52 instead of Rs. 48, although the stipulation made by the tenant was that it was for 13 months, instead of 12 months. In order to save himself from ejectment the tenant was required to tender only Rs. 48 plus costs plus interest and not the rent for 13 months. So inadequacy in the amount of interest can be easily met from the amount deposited under head of `arrears of rent, which exceeded the actual arrears under that head, which was Rs. 48.

5. Counsel for the landlady on the contrary urged that anything deposited under the head of `arrears of rent, which exceeded the actual arrears of rent that was due on the date of application had to be ignored and could not be taken into consideration to see to whether the tender made was adequate.

6. I am o