UJAGAR SINGH,J - (1.) PETITIONERS -respondents filed a petition for ejectment of the respondent (now petitioner) from the premises in dispute. The present petitioner was served for 4.12.1986 on which date he appeared. The case was adjourned to 17.12.86 for filing written-statement and tender of arrears of rent etc. On the last date, the written reply was not ready and, therefore, the case was adjourned to 19.1.1984 on which date the present petitioner tendered the arrears of rent, interests and also costs determined by the Court. The only point left by the Rent Controller, for determination was that as arrears of rent, interests and costs were not tendered on 17.12.1986 the present petitioner was bound to be evicted or not ? As a matter of fact the whole controversy revolved around as to which is the 'first date of hearing'. The Rent Controller accepted 19.1.87 as the 'first date of hearing' but the appellate authority disagreeing with the Rent Controller held that the tender was not in accordance with the requirements of the Act, as 4.12.1986 was the 'first date' of hearings.
(2.) THE counsel for the present petitioner has argued that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sham Lal (dead) by L.Rs. v. Atma Nand Jain Sabha (Regd.) Dal Bazar, AIR 1987 S.C. 197, the words 'first date of hearing' have been interpreted as under :- "It appears that there is consensus in regard to the interpretation of the expression 'first day' in context of the rent legislations of several other States, for instance the Gujarat High Court in Shah Ambala Chhotalal v. Shah Badaldas Dayabhi, AIR 1964 Gujarat 9 dealing with the indential question as to the meaning of the words "the first day of the hearing of the suit" as provided in sub-section (3)(b) of the Section 12 of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act 1947, has observed after considering several decisions that the words 'the first day of hearing' as meaning not the day for the return of the summons or the returnable day, but the day on which the Court applies its mind so the case which ordinarily would be at the time when either the issues are determined or evidence taken." It was also contended in that case that the decisions referred to in that case having been rendered in connection with the suit cannot be taken into consideration in the case of proceedings before the Rent Controller. To this argument, reply was as under :- "We do not find any substance in this contention which seeks to draw a distinction without a difference in substance. It is appropriate to point out in this connection that the object of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act as stated in the Preamble to the Act is to restrict the increase of rent of certain premises situated within the limits of urban areas and eviction of tenants therefrom. From the object of this Act it is abundantly clear that this Act was enacted with the object of affording protection to the tenants against arbitrary increase of rent of certain premises within the limits of urban areas as well as from eviction of the tenants from the rented premises. In this context, it is imperative that the words "the first hearing of the application" have to be interpreted in a manner which promotes the object of this beneficial legislation. Viewed from this aspect we cannot but hold that the words, "first hearing of the application" as used in proviso (i) to sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the said Act does not mean the day fixed for return of the summons or the returnable day but the day when the Court applied its mind to the case." In view of the above judgment following two situations have to be present when a particular date is held to be the first date of hearing :- (i) There should be a 'hearing' which presupposes the existence of an occasion enabling the parties to be heard and the Court to hear them in respect of the cause. (ii) Such hearing should be the first in point of the time after due service of the summons notice on the tenant.
(3.) BOTH these essentials are positive, and in the absence of either of them, there can be no 'first hearing'.;