Case Brief: Rama Kant And Ors. v. Sona Devi, 2002 (2) SCR 14

Deciding Authority: The Supreme Court of India
Name of the Judges: SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI & DORAISWAMY RAJU
Date of Judgement: 21/02/2002
Facts: The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the first appellant, a tenant, can avail protection of the first proviso to Section 13(2) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 on payment of the arrears of rent and other amounts specified therein by the third appellant, his son. This appeal is from the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissing the appellants’ Civil Revision No. 2864 of 1998 on March 18, 1999. Appellant Nos. l and 2 are brothers and are tenants of a shop bearing No. 680/17 situated in Prem Market, New Subzi Mandi Road. Kaitahal (for short. ’the premises’). The respondent is the landlady of the premises. On July l, 1990, a rental agreement was executed between the respondent and appellant Nos. l and 2 agreeing to let out the premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 750 plus house tax. Appellant No. 3 who is the son of appellant No. l, has been residing with him and helping him in his business. The respondent filed eviction petition on the ground of nonpayment of rent of the premises from October l, 1995 till the date of filing of the case on December 6, 1995 under Section 13(2) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short, ’the Act’). The appellants contested the case. Appellant No. 3 paid the arrears of rent for the said period together with other specified sums. The respondent accepted the same without prejudice to her rights. The appellants contended that it was a valid tender on behalf of the first appellant. The learned Rent Controller accepted the contention of the appellants that there was a valid tender of rent within the ambit of the said provision and dismissed the eviction petition on March 31, 1997. However, on appeal by the respondent, the Appellate Authority took the view that the tender of rent by appellant No. 3, could not be treated as a valid tender as being for and on behalf of the first Appellate ordered eviction of the appellants and thus allowed the appeal on May 16, 1998. The appellants unsuccessfully assailed the order of the Appellate Authority before the High Court in Civil Revision No. 2864 of 1998. On dismissal of their revision by order dated March 18, 1999, the appellants have come up in appeal by special leave of this Court.
Judgement: Mr. R.P. Bansal, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, contends that the rent tendered by appellant No. 3 was accepted by the respondent without prejudice which only means that acceptance of rent would not prejudice the other proceedings pending between the same parties, therefore payment of rent should be treated as a valid tender within the meaning of the first proviso of Section (2) of Section 13 of the Act. He invited our attention to the following decisions of this Court: Pushpa Devi and Ors. v. Milkhi Ram (dead) by his Lrs., [1990] 2 SCC 134 and Maghi Lal (dead) through Lrs. v. Kundan Lal and Ors., [1994] Supp. 2 SCC 444. Shri Pradeep Gupta, the learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hands, contends that appellant No. 3 though a son, was alleged to be a subtenant and on that ground another eviction proceeding is pending between the parties and therefore rent tendered by him could not be treated as a valid tender in the present case. In the instant case, appellant No. 3 who paid the rent is admittedly the son of appellant No. l. It is not in dispute that under proviso to subsection (2) of Section 13, the rent due was paid by appellant No. 3. The controversy, however, is that tender of rent by appellant No. 3 who is admittedly not a tenant though accepted, is not a valid tender within the meaning of the first proviso. It may be noticed here that while tendering the arrears of rent he never claimed that he was tendering it as the subtenant. In his statement in the witness box he did say that he tendered the rent on behalf of his father. The tender of rent by appellant No. 3 was as a member of family of the first appellant. When rent is tendered by any member of the tenants’ family to the landlord without any inconsistent claim, it cannot but be for and on behalf of the tenant. In view of this position it cannot be said that the tender of rent by appellant No. 3 was not a valid tender.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
Sudipta Bhowmick, 4th Year, KIIT School of Law.