http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: BRIJ BHUSHAN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KEWAL KUMAR

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       05/08/1998

BENCH: A.S. ANAND, B.N. KIRPAL. V.N. KHARE

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      The only  question involved  in this  appeal by special leave   is    whether   the    amount   deposited   by   the tenant/respondent under  Section 6A  was valid  tender?  The learned Rent  Controller held  the deposit  as not  a  valid tender while  the appellate  authority  and  the  revisional court took a contrary view.      The  factual   matrix  of   the  case   is   that   the tenant/respondent filed  an application  under Section 6A of the Haryana  urban (Control  of Rent & eviction ) Act, 1973, (hereinafter referred  to as  the ’Act’)  before the learned Rent  Controller,   Ambala  on  19.5.88  alleging  that  the landlord was  not receiving  rent and  was also  not issuing receipt for  the same,  and, therefore,  the tenant  had  no other option  available to him except to deposit the arrears of rent  in that court. On obtaining orders from the learned Rent Controller  the tenant  deposited the rent from 12.2.87 to 11.5.88 amounting to Rs. 7500/- in respect of the demised premises in  the court.  Notice was directed to be issued to the respondent  for withdrawal  of the amount by the learned Rent controller.  While the matter rested thus, the landlord filed an  application under  Section 13  of the  Act seeking ejectment of  the tenant  from the  demised premises  on the ground that the tenant had not paid the rent to the landlord from 12.2.87  to 11.8.88 at the rate of Rs. 500/- p.m. and a sum of Rs. 9000/- had become due and payable to the landlord along with  cost  and  interest.  The  tenant  resisted  the application for  ejectment  and  in  the  written  statement asserted that  he had  already deposited the arrears of rent from 12.2.87  to 11.5.88  amount  in  to  Rs.  7500/-  under Section 6A  of the  Act under  orders  of  the  Court  dated 14/15.6. 1988  and that  the necessity  to do  so had arisen because the  landlord had  refused to  receive the  rent and give receipt  for the same. It was maintained in the written statement that  the landlord  did in  to receive the rent in spited of  best efforts made by the tenant and that attitude of the  landlord compelled him to move the court of the Rent Controller under Section 6A of the Act seeking permission to deposit the  rent in  the Court.  No rejoinder  was filed to this written  Statement. The landlord also did not challenge

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

the order  of the  Rent controller  made under Section 6A at any stage.  Thus, the  assertion of  the tenant  both in the application under Section 6A and in the written statement to the effect  that the  landlord despite the best efforts made by the  tenant had  refused to  receive the  rent  and  give receipt for  the same  remained unrebuted.  The learned Rent Controller inspite  of this position allowed the application for ejectment on 25.7.94 and while deciding issue No.2 which reads - -      "  whether   the   respondent   has      deposited the  rent from 12.2.87 to      11.5.188 under  Section 6A  of  the      Rent Act,  if so,  its  effect  ?",      held :-      " Under  this issue, the respondent      is  required   to  prove  that  the      respondent deposited  the rent from      12.2.87 to  11.5.188 under  Section      6-A  of  the  Rent  Act.  There  is      admission of  the  deposit  of  the      rent  but   the  tender  cannot  be      called a  valid tender,  in view of      the  interest  and  the  assessment      (sic: of  cost) being  not paid and      their being  no  evidence  to  this      effect.  In  these,  circumstances,      issue No.  2 is  proved against the      respondent."      The  order   of  ejectment  dated  25.794  successfully challenged by  the tenant before the appellate authority and a revision  filed by  the  landlord  against  the  appellate authority was dismissed by the High Court.      We have  heard the learned counsel for  the parties and examined the record. Section 6A of the Act reads thus:-      " 6-A  . Deposit  of rent.  --  (1)      Notwithstanding  anything   to  the      contrary contained in any other law      for the  time being  in force, if a      landlord  refuses  to  receive,  or      grant  a   receipt  for,  any  rent      payable in  respect of the building      or rented land when tendered to him      by a  tenant, the  tenant may apply      to  the  controller  for  leave  to      deposit, the  rent in  his  office,      and the  controller  shall  receive      the deposit,  if,  after  examining      the applicant, he is satisfied that      there is  sufficient ground for the      application and  if  the  applicant      pays the  fee, if  any,  chargeable      for  the   issue  of   the   notice      hereinafter provided.      (2)  When   a  deposit   has   been      received under  sub-section (1), it      shall be  deemed to  be  a  payment      made by  the tenant to his landlord      in respect of the rent due.      (3) On  receiving the  deposit, the      Controller shall give notice of the      receipt thereof to the landlord and      shall pay  the  amount  thereof  to      him."      The requirement  of deposit  of interest  and cost is a requirement provided  by the proviso to Section 13(2) (i) of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

the Act. That proviso reads thus:-      "  Provided  that  if  the  tenant,      within a  period of fifteen days of      the   first    hearing    of    the      application of  ejectment after due      service,  pays   or   tenders   the      arrears of rent and interest, to be      calculated by  the  Controller,  at      eight percentum  per annum  on such      arrears together  with such cost of      the application,  if any, as may be      allowed  by   the  Controller,  the      tenant shall be deemed to have duly      paid or  tendered the  rent  within      the time aforesaid;      Provided further  that the landlord      shall  not  be  entitled  to  claim      arrears  of   rent  for   a  period      exceeding three  years  immediately      preceding the  date of  application      under the provisions of this Act;"      The learned Rent Controller improved the requirement of the proviso  to Section 13(2) (i) of the Act into Section 6A which was  wholly erroneous. The ground for holding that the deposit under Section 6A  was not valid because interest and cost had  not been  paid is  not tenable.  There is  no such requirement regarding  payment of  interest and  costs under Section 6A of the Act.      In the  established facts and situation that the tenant had deposited the rent from 12.2.87 to 11.5.88 under Section 6A   of the Act and had also tendered rent for the remaining period along  with interest  and cost as contemplated by the proviso to   Section  13(2) (i)  of the Act, the application for eviction ought to have been rejected by the learned Rent Controller. Both  the appellate authority and the High Court therefore, committed  no error in setting aside the order of the Rent Controller and dismissing the ejectment application filed by  the landlord  under Section  13(2) (i)  of the Act against the tenant.      For what  we have said above, there is no merit in this appeal which fails, and, is hereby dismissed. No costs.