Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order Upholding Tenant Eviction and Remands Deposit/Tender Issue Under Section 13 of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. Electricity Charges Not Fixed and Payable Separately Cannot Form Part of Rent for Arrears Computation.

Case Note & Summary

The Supreme Court considered an appeal by special leave by a tenant who had been ordered to be ejected from premises owned by the respondent landlord under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, on the ground that he was in arrears of rent for more than three months and did not tender the arrears at the first hearing before the Rent Controller. The landlord had filed the ejectment application on 22 September 1964. The monthly rent was fixed at Rs.20 and was payable in advance. In addition, the tenant was required to pay electricity charges separately. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in revision, proceeded on the basis that total arrears including rent, interest, costs, and electricity charges amounted to Rs.497.33P, while the tenant claimed to have deposited Rs.469. The High Court held that electricity charges formed part of the rent and, relying on an earlier decision of that court in Hari Ram Jaggi v. Des Rai Sethi, held that the deposit did not cover the entire arrears, thus upholding the order of eviction. The tenant then appealed to the Supreme Court. The core legal issues were whether electricity charges formed part of the rent for the purpose of determining arrears under Section 13, and whether the tenant had made a valid deposit or tender of Rs.469. The tenant contended that electricity charges were not rent and that he had deposited or tendered Rs.469 which covered the rent arrears. The landlord argued that electricity charges were part of the rent and that the total arrears exceeded the deposit, making the tenant liable to ejectment. The Supreme Court examined the pleadings and the rent note. It found that the landlord's application did not state that electricity charges formed part of the rent; the application merely claimed that the tenant had failed to pay electricity charges. Consequently, no issue was framed by the trial court on that question. The appellate court had improperly accepted this new point without any pleading. The rent note itself made it clear that the electricity charges were to be paid separately. Although the Urdu word used for charges was 'Kiraya', the clause expressly stated that electric charges were to be paid separately. Moreover, the amount due for electricity consumption could only be known at the end of each month, whereas the rent was payable in advance. The electricity charges were variable and dependent on actual consumption. If those charges were treated as part of rent, it would mean that the rent of the building was also variable each month, which was not the agreement. The Supreme Court distinguished the earlier precedent on the ground that in that case there was a fixed monthly amount for electric charges, whereas in the present case the charges were variable and ascertainable only at month-end. Therefore, the High Court and District Judge were wrong in treating electricity charges as rent and in holding that non-payment of those charges amounted to non-payment of rent. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had accepted that the amount in deposit was enough to cover rent arrears if electricity charges were excluded. However, the District Judge had recorded a finding that there was no deposit or tender even of the Rs.469 claimed by the tenant. The High Court had not examined the correctness of that finding. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court dismissing the revision and held that if there was a proper deposit or tender of Rs.469 by the tenant, the tenant was not in arrears of rent and not liable to ejectment. The case was remanded to the High Court for re-hearing of the revision on the question whether the sum of Rs.469 had been tendered or deposited in accordance with law so as to satisfy the requirements of Section 13 of the Act. The costs of the appeal were to abide the result.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

Supreme Court set aside High Court order dismissing the revision, held electricity charges not part of rent in the present case, and remanded to High Court to determine whether tenant properly deposited or tendered Rs.469; if yes, tenant was not in arrears and not liable to ejectment. Costs of appeal to abide result.

Law Points