- (1.) On the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 960/-, from 1-3-1981 to 28-2-1983, the landlord filed an ejectment application on 13-1983, 13th April was the first date of hearing. The tenant deposited Rs. 960/- on 22nd April, 1983, in the Savings Bank Account of the landlord and produced the counter foil to show that although they had 15 days' time to pay from 13-4-1983 i.e. the first date of hearing the arrears had already been paid. The Appellate Authority found that the rent having been paid, no eviction order can be passed on the ground of the tenant being in arrears of rent. It did not find any merit in the argument of the landlord that it was the duty of the tenant to assess the interest and costs or to make a request to the Court to assess the same. Since the Rent Controller had not assessed the interest and costs, nothing towards the same was deposited by the tenant and yet it was held by the Appellate Authority that the tenant was not to be ejected because it was the duty of the Court to assess the interest and costs. This is landlord's revision.
(2.) Under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Punjab Act'), it was the duty of the tenant to assess the interest and to deposit the same on the first date of hearing whereas the costs had to be assessed by the Court, and if assessed the tenant was to deposit the same soon after its assessment. There was deviation in this behalf in the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short 'the Haryana Act'), and the duty for assessing the interest and costs was placed on the Court. This was done primarily for the reason that experience had shown that under the Punjab Act, sometimes there was a mistake of assessment of interest and the tenants were being ejected on the ground of short tender of interest. To obviate that situation, the duty to assess the interest was placed on the Court. This view I had taken in Mohan Singh v. Dina Nath (1982 (1) RCJ 662.)
(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the landlord has invited my attention to certain observations made by J.V. Gupta, J. in Badri Parshad v. Rameshwar Dass, 1985 Har Rent R 282, which are to the following effect :- "........As a matter of fact, it was the duty of the tenant to get the interest calculated from the Rent Controller on the first date of hearing.'';