ORDER :- The only ground upon which the opposite party pressed the suit for ejectment of the tenant (applicant) was non-payment of rent in spite of a notice of demand. The trial court upheld this plea and decreed the suit for ejectment.

2. The tenant has come to this court in revision under S. 25, Small Cause Courts Act.

3. The findings are that the defendant was a tenant of the accommodation on a monthly rent of Rs. 200 since 1958. The defendant did not pay the arrears of rent for the period 1st January, 1963 to 31st December, 1970, amounting to Rs. 19,200. A notice demanding payment of this amount as well as to quit the accommodation was served upon the defendant on 9th July, 1973. In spite of it the defendant did not make any payment towards the rent due for the period January, 1963, to December, 1970. During the pendency of the suit the defendant deposited the rent for the period 1st May, 1973 to 28th February, 1975, together with interest and costs etc. totalling Rs. 5,972.43. Since he had not paid the arrears of rent for the period January, 1963 to December, 1970, he was not entitled to the benefit of S. 20 (4) of the Rent Control Act of 1972.

4. Mr. Saksena, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that S. 20 (4) did not require the tenant to deposit arrears of rent, the recovery of which had become barred by limitation. The tenant was entitled to relief against eviction even though he had not deposited the rent for the period January, 1963 to December, 1970. Sub-s. (4) of S. 20 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, provides-

"In any suit for eviction on the ground mentioned in Cl. (a) of sub-s. (2), if at the first hearing of the suit the tenant unconditionally pays or tenders to the landlord or deposits in court the entire amount of rent and damages for use and occupation of the building due from him (such damages for use and occupation being calculated at the same rate as rent) together with interest thereon at the rate of nine per cent per annum and the landlords costs of the suit in respect thereof, after deducting therefrom any amount already deposited by the tenant under sub-s. (1) of S. 30, the court may, in lieu of passing a decree for eviction on that ground, pass an order relieving the tenant against his liability for eviction on that ground."

5. The relevant and material words which require consideration in this case are "the entire amount of rent and damages...... due from him." The question is: would the entire amount include arrears of rent, the recovery of which has become barred by time?

6. Section 3 (1) (a) of the 1947 Rent Control Act, as it stood before the 1954 amendment, provided"-

(a) That the tenant has wilfully failed to make payment to the landlord of any arrears of rent within a month of the service upon him of the notice of demand from the landlord."

7. The phrase "any arrears of rent" came up for interpretation in this court on a number of occasions. In Sohan Lal Kharbanda v. Dr. Sri Ram Sinha (1957 All LJ 503) it was held that the expression "arrears of rent" is wide enough to include even those arrears which could not be recovered in a court of law. The reason is obvious. The remedy of a landlord to recover an arrear may be lost by reason of the law of limitation, but the tenants liability in equity to pay the past rent subsists. By the use of the words any arrears the Legislature emphasised that if a tenant is desirous of preventing the landlord from exercising his right of forfeiture by reason of the default made by the tenant in the payment of rent, then irrespective of the fact whether arrears due were time-barred the tenant should put the landlord in the same position as it no default in payment was made.

8. In 1954 the legislature amended Cl. (a) of S. 3 (1) of the 1947 Rent Control Act. In substance, it deleted the word any in the phrase any arrears of rent. In Mahipal Singh v. Mam Chand (1963 All LJ 496) the amended phrase came up for consid

Click Here to Read the rest of this document