UNION OF INDIA Vs. SURINDER CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's petition against whom ejectment order has been passed by both the authorities below.

(2.) The demised premises consisting of one Bangalow No. 501-XIII-7, Rattangari Annexe situated on Chatturbhuj Road, Amritsar was given on rent at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month to the Military Estate Officer, Jullundur Circle from 5-1-1973. The regular agreement to that effect was reduced into writing. The agreement was entered into in the name of President of India as contemplated under Art.299 of the Constitution. The landlord filed the present application for ejectment on 17-1-1981 inter alia on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent from 1st Oct., 1980 onwards up to the date of this application. The ejectment application was filed against the President of India and the Military Estate Officer, Jullundur Circle, Jullundur Cantt. Notice of this application was issued to the respondents for 23-2-1981. On that date Government Pleader appeared for respondent No. 1 i.e. the President of India. The learned Rent Controller assessed the costs as Rs. 55/-. However it was stated on behalf of the Government Pleader that service on respondent No. 2 i.e. the Military Estate Officer, Jullundur Circle, was not effected and therefore, the learned Rent Controller directed that respondent No. 2 be again summoned through registered post for 3-3-1981. On 3-3-1981, the arrears of rent were tendered along with costs amounting to Rs. 9341/- on behalf of respondent No. 2. Statements of the counsel for the parties were recorded and the case was adjourned for filing the written statement on 13-3-1981. However, on the pleadings of the parties issues were framed by the Rent Controller. Ultimately eviction order was passed on the ground that the tender of arrears of rent made on 3-3-1981 was accepted under protest and since the tenant respondent No. 2 was served for the earlier date i.e. 23-2-1981 as was evident from the written statement filed on 13-3-1981, the tender made on 3-3-1981 was not valid. The other pleas taken by the landlord were negatived. In appeal the learned appellate authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller and thus maintained the eviction order. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant Union of India has filed this petition in this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the landlord wrongly impleaded the President of India as party as he was never the tenant and under the law he could not be made a party in any civil proceedings though the agreement on behalf of the Union of India is always executed in the name of the President of India as contemplated in Art.299 of the Constitution. According to the learned counsel S.79 of C.P.C. specifically provides that in a suit by or against the Government the authority to bet named as plaintiff or defendant as the case may be shall be, in the case of a suit by or against the Central Government, the Union of India. Reference was also made to Art.300 of the Constitution to contend that the Government of India may sue or be sued by the name of the Union of India. Thus argued the learned counsel that the service on the President of India for 23-2-1981 was no service in the eye of law and as regards the service on respondent No. 2 i.e. the Military Estate Officer, the same was not effected on that date and he was served for 3-3-1981 on which date the arrears of rent were duly tendered. Thus argued the learned counsel that being the first date of hearing the tender was valid. The approach of the authorities below in this behalf according to the learned counsel was wrong and illegal and thus the finding arrived at was vitiated. It was also contended that the Union of India was the proper party to be made though the premises were let out to the Union of India through the Military Estate Officer, Jullundur Circle.