TMI Blog1986 (12) TMI 377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. B- VI-33(old) and B-IX-I48(New), Chaura Bazar, Ludhiana, which has been rented on a monthly rental of ₹ 23 by the landlady Smt. Goran Devi on the basis of rent deed dated 7th July, 1967 for a period of three-months. After the expiry of the term of the tenancy, he continued in possession of the suit premises as a statutory tenant under Smt. Guran Devi. Smt. Guran Devi however, gifted away this property in favour of the Respondent on February 13, 1968 and from that date the appellant became a tenant under the respondent. The ejectment was sought on the ground of default in payment of rent from 13.2.1968 till the date of filing of the application for ejectment in July, 1969 under Sec. 13 of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The summons of this application was served on the tenant-appellant and the returnable date was fixed for 26.6.1969. On that date, the appellant appeared before the Rent Controller, Ludhiana with his counsel and prayed for adjournment for filing written statement. The case was adjourned to 2.7.1969. On that date the writ- ten statement was filed and the tenant tendered a sum of ₹ 336 on account of arrears of rent from 13.2.1968 to 12.6.196 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parties to be heard and the court to hear them in respect of the cause. The tender was accordingly held to be valid tender within the meaning of the provisions of the said Act. The appeal was allowed and the order of eviction made by the Rent Controller was set aside. Against this judgment and order a Revision application being Civil Revision No. 895 of 1972 was filed before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The said Revision Case was allowed by holding that the day of first heating was 26.6.1969 when the tenant appeared before the Rent Controller with his counsel and sought time for filing written statement and the tender of the arrears of rent together with interest and costs of the application being not made on that date, the subsequent tender of the same on 2.7.1969 was not a valid tender within the meaning of proviso (i) to sub-Sec. 2 of Section 13 of the said Act. An order was made directing the tenant-appellant to vacate the premises within three months. The tenant was also directed to deposit the. rent for three months within one month from the date of this order, in default he will suffer eviction after expiry of one month. It is against this judgment and order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Restriction Act,1949 In any suit for eviction on the ground mentioned in clause (a) of Sub-Sec.(2) if at the first hearing of the suit the tenant unconditionally pays or tenders to the landlord the entire amount of rent and damages for use and occupation of the building 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 landlord s costs of the suit in respect there- of...the court may, in lieu of passing a decree for eviction on that ground pass an order relieving the tenent against his liability for eviction on that ground. (Emphasis added). Eviction of tanants--(1) xxx(2)xxxx If the Controller, after giving the tenent a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application, is satisfied:- (i) that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due by him in respect of the building or rented land... provided that if the tenant on the first hearing of the application for ejectment after due service, pay or tenders the arrears of rent and interest at six per cent per annum on such arrears together with the cost of app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of an occasion enabling the parties to be heard and the court to hear them in respect of the cause. (ii) Such hearing should be the first in point of time after due service of the summons/notice on the tenant. Both these essentials are positive, and in the absence of either of them, there can be no first hearing It appears that there is consensus in regard to the interpretation of the expression 'first day' in the context of the rent legislations of several other states, for instance, the Gujarat High Court in Shah Ambalal Chhotalal and others. v. Shah Babal Das Dayabhai and Ors., AIR [1964] (Gujarat) p. 9, dealing with the identical question as to the meaning of the words the first day of the hearing of the suit as provided in sub-Sec. 3(b) of Sec. 12 of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 has observed after considering several decisions that the words 'the first day of hearing' as meaning not the day for the return of the summons or the returnable day, but the day on which the Court applies its mind to the case which ordinarily would be at the time when either the issues are determined or evidence taken. Similar view w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
