A.N. Grover, J. - (1.) THIS petition for revision has been referred to a Division Bench by Mahajan, J., -vide his order dated 22nd April, 1963, on account of the conflict of the view on the point whether the deposit made by a tenant under Section 31 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934, in Court would be sufficient compliance with the terms of the proviso to Section 13(2)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
(2.) THE facts in the present case are that an eviction application had been filed by the landlord against his tenants on a number of grounds one of which was non -payment of arrears of rent. The Rent Controller found that the tenants had deposited a sum of Rs. 247.50 nP. in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge because the landlord had refused to accept the money orders which had been sent to him on account of rent. Subsequently on the first date of hearing a sum of Rs. 91.50 nP. was sought to be paid in Court in cash for payment to the landlord which apparently was not accepted. It was not disputed before him nor has it been disputed at any later stage that the total amount of deposit and the payment tendered in Court would be sufficient to satisfy the requirement of the proviso in question with the result that the landlord's petition had to be dismissed in terms of that proviso. That is what the Rent Controller did but on appeal a different view was taken by the Appellate Authority owing to a judgment of Bishan Narain, J., in Ram Nath v. Girdhari Lal, 1959 P.L.R. 77. In that case it had been held that a payment made under the relevant provision of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act as applied to Delhi could not be considered to be payment in Court within the meaning of Section 13 of the Delhi and; Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952. The Appellate Authority consequently directed the eviction of the tenants on the ground that they had not paid or tendered the arrears of rent and interest at 6 per cent per annum on the first date of hearing. Before the decisions given by the learned Judges of this Court are considered, it is necessary to set out Section 31 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act: 31(1) Any person who owes money may at any time deposit in court a sum of money in full or part payment to his creditor. (2) The Court on receipt of such deposit shall give notice thereof to the creditor and shall, on his application, pay the sum to him. (3) From the date of such deposit interest shall cease to run on the sum so deposited.
(3.) SECTION 13(2)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, may also be noticed: 13. (2) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the applicant, is satisfied -(i) that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due by him in respect of the building or rented land within fifteen days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy with his landlord or in the absence of any such agreement, by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable: Provided that if the tenant on the first hearing of the application for ejectment after due service pays or tenders the arrears of rent and interest at six per cent per annum on such arrears together with the cost of application assessed by the Controller, the tenant shall be deemed to have duly paid or tendered the rent within the time aforesaid.;