Rajendra Nath Mittal, J. - (1.) BRIEFLY , the facts of the present case are that Jai Bhagwan is the landlord of the property in dispute and Suraj Parkash is his tenant. The tenant had been depositing rent under section 31 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, from 1961 to 1968, in the Court of Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Panipat. The total amount of deposits comes to Rs. 2461.23. On May 9, 1977, Suraj Parkash tenant filed an application for withdrawal of the amount. In the meanwhile, Jai Bhagwan landlord also approached the Court and moved an application on May 20, 1977 stating that he being the landlord, was entitled to the amount. He consequently, prayed that the vouchers of the amount may be given to him. This application was contested by Suraj Parkash, tenant who (sic) that he was entitled to the amount. The Subordinate Judge after hearing the parties, rejected the application of the landlord and ordered refined of the amount to Suraj Parkash, tenant. Jai Bhagvwah (sic) in revision against the said order of the Subordinate Judge of this Court.
(2.) IT is contended by Mr. H. S. Mittal, learned counsel for the landlord that the amount had been deposited to the tenant for payment to him (landlord). He further urges that in the circumstances, it is the landlord who is entitled to withdraw it had not the tenant. According to the learned counsel, if the amount (sic) deposited under Section 31 of the Punjab Relief of indebtedness Act, in the debtor for payment to the creditor, it can be paid by the Court only to the creditor. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length but express my inability to accept the contention of the learned counsel fur the petitioner. In order to determine the question, it will be proper to refer to Section 31 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, which reads as follow; : 31 (i) 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 shah 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. From a perusal of sub section (2) it is evident that after the amount is deposited in the Court, the Court is required to give a notice to the creditor. In the present case it is not disputed that no such notice was given by the Court to the landlord and the latter also did not take any measure to recover the arrears of rent from the tenant for a long time. If he wanted to recover the rent, he could move an application for ejectment under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act) which was in force prior to April 1973 and the tenant could not remain in the property unless he tendered the rent alongwith interest at the rate of six per cent per annum on the first date of hearing. It appears, the landlord was interested in vacation of the building and that is why he was not taking measures to recover the rent.
(3.) ON the other hand, the tenant went on depositing the rent under the impression that the deposit of rent under section 31 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act was a proper tender. Supreme Court in Shri Vidya Prachar Trust v. Basant Ram, (1969) 71 P.L.R. 526, held that the deposit of arrears of the rent under section 31 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act was not a valid tender of the rent within the scope of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act and did not save the tenant from the consequences of the default as contemplated by section 12 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act.;