Case Note & Summary
The appellant landlord, Shri Vidya Prachar Trust, filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, against the respondent tenant, Pandit Basant Ram, on the ground of default in payment of rent for the period October 1959 to June 1961. On the first date of hearing, the tenant tendered part of the rent and contended that he had made two deposits in the court of the Senior Sub-Judge under Section 31 of the East Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934, which constituted a valid tender of the balance rent to the landlord. The Rent Controller, the appellate authority, and the High Court all accepted this contention and held that the tenant was not in default. Aggrieved, the landlord appealed to the Supreme Court. The core legal issue was whether a deposit under the Relief of Indebtedness Act could be treated as a valid tender of rent in proceedings under the rent control legislation. The Court examined the purpose and scope of Section 31, observing that the Section is designed to enable a debtor to deposit money in court where difficulty in payment exists and interest is running, thereby stopping the accrual of interest. The Act, the Court noted, is meant to govern relations between debtors and creditors and not between landlords and tenants. There is ordinarily no agreement for payment of interest in a tenancy, and the Court of the Senior Sub-Judge cannot function as a clearing house for rent. The general words “any person who owes money” appearing in the Section must be read in the context of the Act as a whole and do not cover a tenant’s payment of rent. Consequently, the deposit did not amount to a valid tender of rent under the Urban Rent Restriction Act and did not absolve the tenant from the consequences of default under Section 13. The Supreme Court accordingly allowed the appeal, setting aside the decisions of the lower authorities, and held that the tenant was liable to be evicted.
Headnote
A) Landlord and Tenant - Eviction for Non-Payment of Rent - Tender of Rent - East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Sections 13(2)(i); East Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934, Section 31 - The tenant deposited part of the rent in court under Section 31 of the Relief of Indebtedness Act, claiming it as valid tender. The Supreme Court held that Section 31 is intended to operate between debtors and creditors where difficulty in payment arises and interest is running, not between landlords and tenants. The deposit does not constitute a valid tender of rent and does not save the tenant from the consequences of default under Section 13 of the Rent Restriction Act. (Paras 69-70)
Issue of Consideration
Whether deposit of rent in court under Section 31 of the East Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934 constitutes a valid tender of rent to the landlord, thereby saving the tenant from eviction under Section 13(2)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the deposit under Section 31 of the East Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934 did not constitute a valid tender of rent to the landlord, and therefore did not save the tenant from eviction under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the decisions of the lower authorities, thereby upholding the landlord's eviction petition.
Law Points
- deposit under Section 31 of Relief of Indebtedness Act is intended for debtor-creditor relationships and stopping interest
- not for landlord-tenant rent tender
- general words 'any person who owes money' must be construed in context of Act's purpose
- the Rent Restriction Act's eviction provisions for non-payment are not satisfied by such deposit
- the section cannot be used as a clearing house for rent
