Thakkar, J. - (1.) One cannot conceive of a greater judicial sin than the sin of treating the 'oppressor' and the 'oppressed' on a par. Or that of rewarding the oppressor and punishing the oppressed whilst administering the law designed to protect the oppressed. We would be guilty of committing this sin if we uphold the view that the tenant who advances a loan to the landlord in order to secure the tenancy (in violation of the prohibition to do so embodied in the statute enacted for his benefit) is in pari delicto. And that the Court will not assist the tenant in claiming adjustment of the loan amount against the landlord's claim for rent.
(2.) The lower appellate Court dismissed the respondent-landlord's suit for eviction against the appellant-tenant holding that the tenant was not in arrears of rent. The following facts are not in dispute:- (1) The tenant had advanced a sum of Rs. 2000/- under an agreement which inter alia contained a stipulation that the loan amount was to be adjusted against the rent which accrued. (2) The amount so advanced by the tenant was sufficient to cover the landlord's claim of arrears. (3) If the loan amount was accordingly adjusted towards the rent which accrued the tenant was not in arrears of rent.
(3.) The High Court has taken the view that since the loan advanced by the tenant was in violation of the prohibition contained in the Rent Act, (Section 3 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act.) the tenant was not entitled to claim adjustment of the loan amount against the rent which accrued subsequently. The tenant was therefore in arrears of rent and liable to be evicted according to the High Court.;