Sudhir Narain, J. - (1.) The petitioner is aggrieved against the decree for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages passed against him by the courts below.
(2.) The plaintiff-respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed S.S.C. Suit No. 115 of 1990 against the petitioner for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages with the allegations that the petitioner was tenant at monthly rent of Rs. 100 and Rs. 30 per month as electric charges. He had not paid rent for the period 1.9.1979 to 30.6.1980 amounting to Rs. 1,000 and electric charges amounting to Rs. 300. He sent a notice dated 9.7.1980 demanding this amount which was served on him on 11.7.1980 but inspite of service of notice he did not pay the amount. The petitioner denied the averments made in the plaint. His case was that the rent was Rs. 100 per month inclusive of electric charges. He had sent a money order on 14.7.1980 for a sum of Rs. 1.000 but It was refused by the plaintiff, Prem Chandra. The trial court decreed the suit on 17.12.1981 on the finding that the landlords had not refused to accept the money order alleged to have been sent by the petitioner. This judgment has been affirmed In revision by the respondent No. 1 on 6.8.1983. These orders have been challenged in the present writ petition.
(3.) The core question is whether the petitioner has committed default In payment of arrears of rent. Admittedly the petitioner had sent money order on 14.7.1980 for a sum of Rs. 1,000. This amount covered the period for which the notice was sent. The money order, however, is alleged to have been delivered to Prem Chandra. the plaintiff, after the period of one month. In Full Bench decision of this Court in Bhikha Lal and others v. Munna Lal, 1974 AWR 294. the question referred was whether the tenant could be said to have committed default under Section 3 (1) (a) of U. P. (Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction) Act. 1947, in respect of payment of rent which he had sent to a landlord by money order well within time but had reached the landlord after expiry of 30 days. The Court answering the said question held that if the landlord has demanded the arrears through the registered notice, the amount sent by money order there, will be implied authority to the tenant to send the amount through the postal agency and if the tenant sends the amount within the time prescribed in law to the landlord, unless he withdraws it. the tender will be valid tender to the landlord within time even if the money order does not reach him within the prescribed time under law. It was observed as under : "Thus, assuming that by reason of Section 44 (1) of the Post Office Act. the post office is the statutory agent of the tenant, It can still be held to be the agent of the creditor also provided the circumstances of the case Justify that Inference. We are thus free to consider the question before us unhampered by Section 44 (1) of the Post Office Act." "Thus, It appears to me that the Court in this case Inferred an Implied authority to the debtor to send the cheque by post merely because a demand had been made by post. This principle to my mind is based on sound logic. If a trader sends me a reminder of an outstanding bill through a messenger, in the absence of any intention expressed to the contrary. I believe I would be Justified in assuming that the trader, by implication has authorised me to send the amount outstanding through that messenger. Extending this principle, if a creditor who resides in a different town, makes a demand from his debtor by means of a letter despatched through the post he impliedly Invites the debtor to meet his obligations through the post. In this connection it may be borne in mind that "Government exercises a governmental power for the public benefit in the establishment and operation of the postal money order system and is not engaged in commercial transactions, notwithstanding it may have some aspects of commercial banking.";