SHANKERLAL Vs. MATTHULAL
LAWS(MPH)-1980-4-25
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on April 04,1980

SHANKERLAL Appellant
VERSUS
Matthulal Respondents

JUDGEMENT

J .P BAJPAI,J - (1.)According to law the arrears of rent are to be paid or tendered to the landlord and not to be tied to his neck. The provisions made in M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) requiring a tenant to pay the amount of arrears of rent within the prescribed period of service of notice of demand and further requiring him to continue to make payment regularly month to month during the pendency of a suit for eviction are meant for protecting the interests of landlord also in the, matter of recovery of rent while providing for protection to the tenant against eviction. In order to ensure the compliance of the aforesaid requirements, the legislature thought it proper to deprive the defaulting tenant of the protection against eviction on the grounds as specified in Clause (a) of section 12 (1). But these provisions are not intended for being used as a handle by the landlord to any how create a ground for eviction of the tenant by avoiding to receive payment of arrears of rent when tendered with an ulterior motive to see that a case is any how made out for claiming eviction on the ground of default.
(2.)THE case giving rise to this appeal appears to be one of such cases where despite tender of the arrears of rent within the prescribed period by the tenant, the landlord found it convenient not to accept the same by refusing the tender made by Bank -draft or money order and thereafter filing the suit for eviction on the allegation that the tenant was in arrears of rent despite service of notice of demand.
After necessary trial, the trial Court found that there was no default on the part of the tenant inasmuch as immediately after the receipt of notice of demand he had purchased a Bank draft from a nationalised bank and remitted the same by registered post to the landlord by mentioning the number and date of the Bank draft and the amount thereof in the covering letter. The plaintiff landlord however, denied to have received any such draft. It appears that being apprehensive of the ulterior motive of the landlord plaintiff, the tenant again remitted the amount by money order which too happened to be returned back. The case of the plaintiff was that he had never received any such letter accompanied by the Bank draft and that the allegations of refusal of the money order was also false, inasmuch as no such amount by money order was ever tendered The trial Court, however accepted the documentary and oral evidence as adduced by the tenant disclosing purchase of a Bank draft for the amount of arrears of rent and remittance of she same to the plaintiff -landlord by registered post. The trial Court was of the opinion that by doing so, the tenant had complied with the requirement of the notice of demand and, as such, the essential requirement for instituting a suit on the ground as specified in clause (a) of section 12 (1) was not fulfilled and therefore, there was no scope for granting a decree for eviction. There is sufficient documentary evidence on record in the shape of Ex. D -9 showing purchase of the Bank draft for Rs.900/ - by the tenant -defendant on 17 -1 -1970, There is further evidence vide Ex. D -1 that a registered letter dispatched vide registration No.31 dated 17 -1 -1970 was duly delivered to the addressee Tulsiram Bhagwan Das on 19 -1 -1970. Thereafter, there is evidence in the shape of correspondence in between the landlord and the tenant wherein the tenant had stated that he had sent the amount of arrears of rent by Bank draft. The landlord had, however, denied to have received any such Bank draft. On receipt of the aforesaid denial, the tenant had again remitted the entire amount by money order and obtained refund of the amount of the draft by executing a bond (Ex. D -8), The money order receipt and the returned money order coupon are already on record In the opinion of this Court, on the aforesaid material the trial Court was fully justified for the reasons stated in Para 17 of its judgment in holding that the version of the tenant that he had remitted the entire amount of arrears of rent on 17 -1 -1970 by Bank draft which was received by the landlord on 19 -1 -1970, i.e. within two months from the date of service of notice of demand on 1 -1 -1970. The subsequent conduct of the tenant in again remitting the amount by money order further supported his version that in compliance of the notice of demand the amount was remitted by a Bank draft. The lower appellate Court did not disturb this finding but simply found it convenient to ignore the aforesaid vital aspect of the case on which the judgment and decree of the trial Court were based. It is really painful to notice that the lower appellate Court while reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court did not care to consider the aforesaid vital aspect. Before passing any decree for eviction on the ground under clause (a) of section 2 (I) after reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the lower appellate Court should have applied its mind to the finding arrived by the trial Court holding that the essential basis for instituting a suit on the ground as specified under clause (a) of section 12(1) was not at all available and, as such, there was no scope for granting a decree for eviction on that court.

(3.)UNDER these circumstances, the aspect of compliance of section 13(1) is not relevant in view of the finding that there has been no initial default at all so as to give rise to a ground as contemplated by clause (a) of section 12(1). Since there was no ground itself for eviction under clause (a), in view of the finding that the tenant had tendered the amount of arrears of rent on 19 -1 -1970 within the prescribed period of two months from the date of service of notice of demand on 1 -1 -1970, the stage of making a decree for eviction did not reach and thus there was no occasion for claiming the benefit of section 12(3) and 13(5) of the Act at all. The question of compliance of section 13 (1) becomes relevant when the benefit of section 12(3) or section 13(5) is to be given.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.