Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. This writ petition arises out of suit filed by landlord -respondent No. 2 Ghan Shyam Das Kateria against original tenant -petitioner Lakhmichand Sahu, since deceased and survived by legal representatives in the form of S.C.C. Suit No. 36 of 1988. In the suit relief of eviction on the ground of default as well as for recovery of arrears of rent was sought for. The notice terminating the tenancy and demanding the rent was given on 15.3.1988 and served upon the tenant on 16.3.1988. In the said notice arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 60/ - per month were demanded with effect from 1.2.1986. The tenant had earlier in pursuance of a notice given by the Cantonment Board, Babina district, Jhansi under section 65 of Cantonment Act, 1924 had paid an amount of Rs. 757.20 paise to the Cantonment Board as the amount due as tax in respect of the house in dispute. Copy of the said notice has been shown to me by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In the said notice it was mentioned that under section 65(4) of Cantonment Act tenant would be entitled to deduct the said amount from the rent. The tenant after deducting the said amount remitted the remaining arrears of rent through money order after receiving the notice. However, it appears that money order was sent after more than one month from the date of receipt of the notice. In any case, defendant -tenant deposited the entire arrears of rent on the first date of hearing. The Trial Court/J.S.C.C/Munsif, Jhansi through judgment and decree dated 24.4.1989 dismissed the suit for eviction. However, suit for recovery of rent/withdrawing the amount deposited by the tenant in the Court was decreed. Against the said judgment and decree landlord -respondent No. 2 filed S.C.C. Revision No. 112 of 1989. IVth Additional District Judge, Jhansi allowed the revision on 27.2.1990, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and decreed the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent, hence this writ petition by the tenant.
(2.) THE Revisional Court allowed the revision on the following three points: - - (i) Rent was sent through money order by the tenant after more than one month from receipt of the notice hence landlord was entitled to refuse the same and in view of the refusal of the landlord tenant remained defaulter. (ii) Tenant was not entitled to deduct the amount which he had paid to the Cantonment Board. (iii) The amount deposited by the tenant on the date of first hearing could not confer any benefit upon him as he did not indicate that it was being deposited under section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. I find that all the three grounds taken by the Revisional Court are erroneous in law.
(3.) EVEN after expiry of one month of receipt of notice of demand of rent the liability of the tenant to pay the rent continues and if tenant tenders the amount, it is obligatory upon the landlord to accept the same. The only purpose of providing one month's limitation to pay under section 20(2)(a) of the Act is that suit cannot be filed within one month from receipt of the notice by the tenant. If the amount sent by the tenant is refused by the landlord then rent remains due but tenant does not remain defaulter vide full bench authority of this Court in Indrasani v. Din Ilahi, 1968 AWR 167, followed in G. Singh v. A.D.J., 2000 (1) ARC 653 (FB). If the entire rent is paid before filing of the suit even after more than one month from receipt of the notice then the suit is not maintainable vide M/s. S.O. Mill v. M/s. R. Ramchandra : AIR 2002 SC 562. Similar result will follow if said rent has been refused by the landlord.;