http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: CHINNAMMA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GOPALAN AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT13/10/1995

BENCH: PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J) BENCH: PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J) AHMADI A.M. (CJ) SEN, S.C. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR  363            1995 SCC  (6) 491  JT 1995 (7)   276        1995 SCALE  (5)727

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T Paripoornan.J.      The first  respondent in O.P. No. 10288/88, Kerala High Court -  hereinafter referred  to as  the ‘tenant’ - appeals against the judgment of the High Court dated 27.10.1994. The petitioner in  the Original  Petition - hereinafter referred to as  the ‘landlord’  - is the first respondent herein. The statutory authorities  and other proforma respondents in the High Court  are the  respondents in  this Civil  Appeal. The learned Judge  of the  High Court,  by  the  judgment  dated 27.10.1994, in  exercise of  the power  under Article 227 of the Constitution, set aside the order passed by the District Judge, Palakkad  in R.C.R.P.  No. 6  of 1985 dated 31.7.1986 (Ext. P-3) and restored the order passed by the Rent Control Court and appellate authority rendered in I.A. No. 764/82 in R.C.P. (O.P.  ) No. 141/77 (Ext. P-1) and R.C.A. 68/83 (Ext. P-2). The  appellant-tenant was  given three months’ time to surrender the  possession of the building in question to the respondent-landlord. 2.   This litigation  has a checkered history. The appellant is a tenant of a residential building bearing Door No. 22/70 in Sriram Street, Moothanthara, Koppom, Palakkad Taluk under the  first   respondent-landlord.  The  appellant  took  the building on  lease at a rent of Rs. 20/- per mensum from the landlord on  1.8.1972. Alleging  that the rent from 1.6.1975 is in  arrears, the  landlord sent  a  notice  on  22.6.1977 terminating the  tenancy  and  demanding  surrender  of  the building. Subsequently, the landlord filed R.C.P. (O.P.) No. 141/77 seeking  eviction of  the tenant  under Section 11(2) and 11(3)  of the  Kerala Buildings  (Lease &  Rent Control) Act, 1965  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  ‘Act’).  The grounds urged  for eviction  of the  tenant are,  default in payment of  rent [S.  11(2)] and bonafide requirement of the building for  the landlord’s  own occupation [S. 11(3)]. The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

plea of  bonafide requirement  for landlord’s own occupation was found  against. However,  the Rent Control Court ordered eviction under Section 11(2) (b) of the Act on the ground of default in  payment of  rent. The Court ordered that in case the tenant  deposits a  sum of  Rs.820/- as  arrears  as  on 1.11.1978 within one month from the date of the order, i.e., 30.11.1978,  the   tenant  could  move  an  application  for vacating the order of eviction. The tenant filed an appeal - R.C.A.  No.   8/79  before   the  appellate  authority.  The appellate authority, by order dated 26.7.1979, set aside the order passed  by the  Rent Controller  and ordered  a remit, directing   the    Rent   Controller    to   consider    the maintainability of  the  petition.  After  remit,  the  Rent Controller  passed  an  order  on  22.2.1980  under  Section 11(2)(b) of the Act in the following terms:-           "In the  result, I  find  that  the      petitioner’s  claim   for  recovery   of      possession  under   section   11(3)   is      unsustainable.  But  the  petitioner  is      entitled to  get recovery  of possession      since  the   respondent  has   defaulted      payment of  rent. So  the respondent  is      ordered to  surrender vacant  possession      of the  petition schedule building under      section 11(2) within 30 days from today.      In case  the respondent deposits the sum      of Rs.  540/- which  is the  arrears  of      rent due  as on  1.2.1980  she  will  be      entitled to  apply for getting the order      vacated under  section 11(2)  (c) of Act      2/1965. The respondent is ordered to pay      costs  of   the   petitioner   including      advocate’s fee  which is  fixed  as  Rs.      25/-. The  respondent is further ordered      to pay  interest at  6% per annum on the      arrears of Rs. 540/- from today."                           (emphasis supplied)      The appeal,  R.C.A. No.  40/1980, filed  by the  tenant before the  appellate authority  was dismissed on 21.7.1981. Thereafter,  the  tenant  moved  the  Revisional  Authority, District Court,  Palghat in  R.C.R.P. No. 53 of 1981 and the learned  District   Judge  passed  the  following  order  on 24.3.1982 :-      "The tenant  shall be  free to  get  the      order vacated  by making  the  necessary      deposit and  application as contemplated      in Sec.  11(2) (c)  of  Act  2  of  1965      before the  Rent  Control  Court  on  or      before 24.5.1982." It is  nobody’s case  that either  the Rent Control Court or the appellate court or the Revisional Court passed any order under Section  12  of  the  Act  regarding  the  payment  of subsequent arrears  (or future  rent till the termination of proceedings) admitted  by the  tenant, when  the proceedings were pending  for eviction  and before  the order was passed under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act. Before expiry of the time fixed in  the aforesaid  order of  the District  Judge,  the tenant filed  I.A. No.  764/82 before the Rent Controller on 6.4.1982, along  with a remittance of a sum of Rs. 750/- and prayed  for  setting  aside  the  order  of  eviction  dated 22.2.1980. The  Rent Controller,  by Ext.  P-1, order  dated 4.8.1983, held  that the  tenant has  failed  to  remit  the amount,  which   is  due,  within  the  time  specified  and dismissed the  petition. The  appeal filed by the tenant was dismissed by  the appellate  authority by  Ext.  P-2,  order

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

dated 14.12.1984.  The learned  District Judge,  in R.C.R.P. No. 6 of 1985, by Ext. P-3, order dated 31.7.1986, set aside the order  passed by  the Rent Controller dated 4.8.1983 and of the  appellate authority  dated 14.12.1984  and also  set aside the  order of  eviction passed  in R.C.P.  (O.P.)  No. 141/77. The learned District Judge took the view that it was not disputed  by the  landlord that  the amount of Rs. 750/- deposited  on   6.4.1982  will   cover  the   entire  amount specifically quantified  by the  Rent Control  Court in  its order dated 22.2.1980 as affirmed by the Revisional Court in R.C.R.P. No  53/81 dated  24.3.1982.  In  other  words,  the amount remitted  by the  tenant included the arrears of rent Rs. 540/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the order, Rs. 25 towards cost and also the rent for subsequent four  months. The  District Judge  in  Ext.  P-3, order dated  31.7.1986, held  that the  Rent Controller  has only to  see whether  the order  for  deposit  (order  dated 22.2.1980) as  affirmed by the Revisional Court (order dated 24.3.1982) has  been complied  with or not. In this case, it was admittedly  complied with. No further question arose for consideration to  set aside  the order  of  eviction,  under Section 11(2)  (c) of  the Act.  It was further held that it was  beyond   the  powers  of  the  Rent  Controller  in  an application under  Section 11(2)  (c) of the Act to consider the claim  of arrears  of rent that has become due after the passing of  the order  under Section  11(2)  (b).  In  other words, the order of eviction passed in R.C.P. (O.P.) No. 141 of 1977  on 22.2.1980  clearly determined the amount payable by the  tenant and  that was  the only amount required to be paid by  the tenant  to get  the order vacated under section 11(2) (c)  of the  Act. It  was admittedly  paid. Since  the eviction has  been allowed only on the ground of non-payment of rent  till then,  it is  not for  the Rent  Controller or appellate authority to see whether any rent has been kept in arrears by  the tenant  subsequent thereto. It was held that it is  beyond the  powers  of  the  Rent  Controller  in  an application under  Section 11(2)  (c) of the Act to consider the claim  for arrears of rent that has become due after the passing of  an order  under Section 11(2) (b) of the Act. It is, in  this view,  the learned  District Judge  in Ext. P-3 order dated  31.7.1986 set  aside the  order  of  the  lower authorities (Ext. P-1 and P-2). 3.   The landlord  filed Original  petition No.  10288/88 in the High  Court of  Kerala and  assailed the aforesaid order passed by  the District  Judge in  R.C.R.P. No.  6/85  dated 31.7.1986 (Ext. P-3). The learned single Judge of the Kerala High Court, after referring to the prior history of the case and the  earlier orders  passed in  the various proceedings, posed the question thus:-           "Whether the  revisional court  was      right in holding that the respondent was      not required to pay or deposit more than      the amount  which was  quantified by the      Rent   Controller,    the   same   being      confirmed by the Appellate Authority and      the Revisional  Authority or whether the      respondent/tenant should  have deposited      the entire arrears of rent that fell due      by 6.4.1982  instead  of  Rs.  750/-  in      terms   of   the   directions   of   the      revisional court  in R.C.R.P.  No. 53 of      1991." (It was  on 6.4.1982, the tenant filed the application under Section 11(2) (c) of the Act and made the deposit.) After referring to Section 11(2) (a) (b) and (c) and Section

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

12(1) and  (2) of  the Act  the learned  Single  Judge  held thus:-      "The expression  "arrears  of  rent"  in      Sec. 11(2)  (c) of  the Act (was held to      mean) will  be the  "entire  arrears  of      rent due"  as on  the  date  of  deposit      under that  sub clause in the context of      section 12 of the Act."                           (emphasis supplied)      In taking  the  said  view  the  learned  Single  Judge followed a  Bench decision  in Chellamma  Varghese vs. Cicey (1994 (2)  KLT 106)  and held  that it  is not  the  arrears specified in  the order  of  eviction  passed  by  the  Rent Controller dated 22.2.1980 but the deposit of all arrears of rent that  accrued even  subsequent thereto till the date of filing of  the application  under Section  11(2) (c)  of the Act, that should be made. The learned Single Judge set aside the order  passed in  revision  by  the  District  Judge  in R.C.R.P. No. 6 of 1985 dated 31.7.1986 (Ext. P-3). 4.   We heard  counsel. The  short question  that arises for our consideration  is what  is the  amount  that  should  be deposited by the tenant under Section 11(2) (c)of the Act to set aside  the order  passed under  Section 11(2) (b) of the Act. Should  the deposit  be only  of that  amount which was specified as  payable in  the order of eviction passed under Section 11(2) (b) of the Act or will it take within its fold even the  arrears of rent that accrued due subsequent to the said order  of eviction  and upto  the date  of deposit? The Rent Controller  passed the  order of eviction on 22.2.1980. He held  that in case the tenant deposits a sum of Rs. 540/- which is  the arrears  of rent due as on 1.2.1980 along with the advocate’s  fee Rs.  25/- and interest at the rate of 6% per annum  on  arrears  of  Rs.540/-,  the  tenant  will  be entitled to  get the order of eviction vacated under Section 11(2) (c)  of the  Act. The learned District Judge has found that  the   amount  of  Rs.  750/-  will  cover  the  amount quantified specifically  by the Rent Controller in the order dated 22.2.1980. The deposit made along with the application filed under Section 11(2) (c) of the Act - complied with the order dated  22.2.1980. Really,  no other  point  arose  for consideration on  the facts of this case, at that stage. But the learned Single Judge of the High Court held that deposit to be  made by the tenant should also include the arrears of rent that  accrued due  subsequent to  the order of eviction dated 22.2.1980 and should include the dues till the date of deposit, i.e., 6.4.1982. The question is whether the view so expressed by  the learned  single Judge  is in  accord  with Section 11(2) (c) and the Scheme of the Act? 5.   It will  be useful  to quote Section 11(2) (a), (b) and the proviso  thereto, 11(2)  (c) and  Section 12 of the Act, which are as under:-      "11. Eviction of tenants      (2)  (a) A  landlord who  seeks to evict      his  tenant  shall  apply  to  the  Rent      Control Court  for a  direction in  that      behalf.      (b)  If the  Rent Control  Court,  after      giving   the    tenant   a    reasonable      opportunity of showing cause against the      application,  is   satisfied  that   the      tenant has not paid or tendered the rent      due by  him in  respect of  the building      within fifteen  days after the expiry of      the  time  fixed  in  the  agreement  of      tenancy with  his  landlord  or  in  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

    absence of  any such  agreement  by  the      last day  of the  month  next  following      that for  which the  rent is payable, it      shall make an order directing the tenant      to put the landlord in possession of the      building, and  if it is not satisfied it      shall  make   an  order   rejecting  the      application thereof by him:           Provided that  an application under      this sub-section  shall be  made only if      the  landlord   has  sent  a  registered      notice  to  the  tenant  intimating  the      default and the tenant has failed to pay      or  tender   the  rent   together   with      interest at  six per  cent per annum and      postal charges  incurred in  sending the      notice  within   fifteen  days   of  the      receipt of  the notice or of the refusal      thereof.      (c)  The order of the Rent Control Court      directing the tenant to put the landlord      in possession  of the building shall not      be executed  before the  expiry  of  one      month from  the date  of such  order  or      such further  period as the Rent Control      Court may  in its  discretion allow; and      if the  tenant deposits  the arrears  of      rent   with   interest   and   cost   of      proceedings within  the said  period  of      one month or such further period, as the      case  may   be,  it  shall  vacate  that      order."      "12. Payment or  deposit of  rent during      the   pendency    of   proceedings   for      eviction:- (1) No tenant against whom an      application for  eviction has  been made      by a landlord under Section 11, shall be      entitled  to   contest  the  application      before the Rent Control Court under that      section, or  to prefer  an appeal  under      section 18 against any order made by the      Rent Control  Court on  the  application      unless  he  has  paid  or  pays  to  the      landlord,  or  deposits  with  the  Rent      Control   Court    or   the    appellate      authority,  as  the  case  may  be,  all      arrears of  rent admitted  by the tenant      to be  due in respect of the building up      to the  date of  payment or deposit, and      continues to  pay or to deposit any rent      which may  subsequently  become  due  in      respect  of   the  building,  until  the      termination of  the  proceedings  before      the Rent  Control Court or the appellate      authority, as the case may be.      (2)  The deposit  under sub-section  (1)      shall be  made within  such time  as the      Court may  fix and in such manner as may      be prescribed  and shall  be accompanied      by the fee prescribed for the service of      notice referred to in sub-section (4) :      Provided that  the  time  fixed  by  the      Court for  the deposit of the arrears of      rent shall  not be  less than four weeks      from the  date of the order and the time

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

    fixed for  the  deposit  of  rent  which      subsequently accrues  due shall  not  be      less than  two weeks  from the  date  on      which the rent becomes due.      (3)  If any  tenant fails  to pay  or to      deposit the  rent as aforesaid, the Rent      Control   Court    or   the    appellate      authority, as  the case  may  be,  shall      unless the tenant shows sufficient cause      to  the   contrary,  stop   all  further      proceedings and  make an order directing      the  tenant   to  put  the  landlord  in      possession of the building.      (4)  When anydeposit  is made under sub-      section (1),  the Rent  Control Court or      the appellate authority, as the case may      be, shall cause notice of the deposit to      be  served   on  the   landlord  in  the      prescribed   manner   and   the   amount      deposited   may,    subject   to    such      conditions  as  may  be  prescribed,  be      withdrawn by the landlord on application      made by him to the Rent Control Court or      the appellate authority in that behalf."      (emphasis supplied) 6.   In coming  to the  conclusion as  he  did  the  learned Single  Judge  relied  on  the  earlier  Bench  decision  in Chellamma  Varghese  vs.  Cicey  (supra),  which  held  that Sections 11 and 12 of the Act should be read together and so the arrears  of rent  in Section  11(2) (c) of the Act would mean "entire  arrears of rent due" as on the date of deposit under that  sub-clause in  the context  of Section 12 of the Act. 7.   A mere look at Sections 11 and 12 of the Act would show that they  operate in  different situations.  Under  Section 11(2) (b)  of the  Act the  court passes  a final  order  of eviction, directing  the  tenant  to  put  the  landlord  in possession of  the building, if there is default as provided therein. The  execution of  such final  order is statutorily suspended for  a period  of one  month. Within  that time or such further  time as  the court  may allow,  the tenant  is given an  opportunity to  deposit the  arrears of  rent with interest and  cost of  the proceedings  and, if so done, the court is  bound to  vacate the  order passed  under  Section 11(2) (b)  of the  Act. On the other hand, the provisions of Section  12  are  applicable  during  the  pendency  of  the proceedings for eviction. It permits the tenant against whom an application  has been  made by the landlord under Section 11 to contest the application or to prefer an appeal only if the tenant  has paid  or pays to the landlord or deposits in the court  all arrears  of rent admitted by the tenant to be due in  respect of  the building upto the date of payment of deposit and  also continues  to pay  or to  deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building till the  termination of  the proceedings  before the court. Section 12  is a  special provision  applicable  during  the pendency of the proceedings and the provisions thereof point out that  an order has to be made by the court fixing a time and the  manner for payment or deposit of the amount. If the tenant fails to pay or deposit the rent so specified, unless sufficient cause  is shown to the contrary, the Rent Control Court shall  stop all  further proceedings and make an order directing the  tenant to  put the  landlord in possession of the building.  In other words, Section 12 provides a summary procedure whereby during the pendency of the proceedings the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

court can  direct the  tenant to  pay the  current  rent  as admitted by  the tenant  and if  it is not so done, the main eviction proceedings  itself will  come to  an end  and  the court is  enabled to  pass an  order directing the tenant to put the  landlord in  possession of  the building.  For  the applicability  of   Section  12   it  is  evident  that  the proceedings for  eviction should  be pending,  and the court should, by an order, direct the tenant to pay or deposit all arrears of  rent that have been admitted by the tenant to be due and  the tenant  shall continue to pay the admitted rent that may subsequently become due till the termination of the proceedings and if it is not so done, that itself is treated as an  independent default  which will  enable the  court to stop further  proceedings and  make an  order directing  the tenant to  put the  landlord in  possession of the building. Section 12  will not  apply to a proceeding which is already over under  Section 11(2)  (b) of the Act. To invoke Section 12 of  the Act,  an independent  order,  passed  during  the pendency of  the proceedings  under Section  11 is required. With regard  to the proceedings which have ended in an order passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(2) (b), it is only  the  provisions  of  Section  11(2)  (c)  that  are applicable. The  view  of  the  learned  Single  Judge  that provisions of  Section 11(2)  (b) should  be read along with Section 12  of the  Act relying on an earlier Bench decision in Chellama  Varghese vs. Cicey (supra), is not justified in law. We  hold that  Section 12 of the Act has no application to a  case wherein  the proceedings  for  eviction  are  not pending, but on the other hand an order of eviction has been passed by the court under Section 11(2) (b) of the Act. In a case where  an order  of  eviction  has  been  passed  under Section 11  (2) (b)  of the  Act, Section 11(2) (c) alone is attracted and Section 12 of the Act is "inapplicable". 8.   In order to maintain an application for eviction of the tenant on  the ground of default in the payment of rent, the proviso to  Section 11(2) (b), mandates the landlord to send a registered notice to the tenant intimating the default and there should  be failure  by the  tenant  to  pay  the  rent together with  interest at  6% per  annum and postal charges incurred in sending the notice within 15 days of the receipt or the  notice or  of the  refusal thereof.  The proviso  to Section 11(2)  (b) of  the  Act  is  mandatory.  Only  after compliance of  the proviso aforesaid, the landlord can apply to the  Rent  Control  Court,  after  giving  the  tenant  a reasonable opportunity,  should be satisfied that the tenant has not  paid or  tendered the rent due by him in respect of the building  as per the terms of agreement of tenancy or by the last  day of the month next following that for which the rent is  payable, the  court can make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building. An order passed  under Section  11(2) (b)  remains in suspended animation for a period of one month. If within the period of one month  from the  date of  the order passed under Section 11(2) (b)  or such  further period  as Rent Controller Court may allow,  the tenant  deposits the  arrears of  rent  with interest and  cost of  proceedings, the  court is  bound  to vacate  the  order  passed  under  Section  11(2)  (b).  The language of Section 11(2) (b), and the proviso thereto, read along with Section 11(2) (c) clearly obliges the tenant only to deposit the arrears of rent (along with interest and cost of proceedings)  for which  the landlord  is obliged to send the notice under the proviso to Section 11(2) (b) of the Act and the court has passed an order on the basis of such cause of action,  under Section  11 (2)  (b) of  the  Act.  By  no stretch of  imagination, the  arrears of  rent specified  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

Section 11(2)  (c) of the Act will take within its fold, the entire arrears  of rent  due till the date of deposit, since the date  of deposit  will always  be after  the date of the order passed  by the  court under  Section 11(2)  (b) of the Act. In the decision of this Court in Smt. Prakash Mehra vs. K.L.  Malhotra   AIR  1989  SC  1652),  a  somewhat  similar provision in  Delhi Rent  Control Act,  1958 (59  of  1958), Section 14(1) (a) came up for consideration:      "14. Protection   of    tenant   against      eviction -  (1) Notwithstanding anything      to the  contrary contained  in any other      law or  contract, no order or decree for      the  recovery   of  possession   of  any      premises shall  be made  by any court or      Controller in  favour  of  the  landlord      against a tenant:           Provided that  the Controller  may,      on an  application made  to him  in  the      prescribed manner, make an order for the      recovery of  possession of  the premises      on one  or more of the following grounds      only, namely:-      (a)  that the  tenant has  neither  paid      nor tendered the whole of the arrears of      the rent  legally recoverable  from  him      within two months of the date on which a      notice of demand for the arrears of rent      has been  served on  him by the landlord      in the manner provided in Section 106 of      the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of      1882)."      The crucial words, occuring in Section 14(1) (a) to the effect, "the whole of the arrears of rent", was construed by this Court  tomean only  the arrears of rent demanded by the notice for  payment of  arrears of  rent. In  para 7  of the judgment, this Court held as follows:-           "It is  urged before  us by learned      counsel for  the appellant that S. 14(1)      (a) of  the Act contemplates the payment      or tender of the whole of the arrears of      rent legally recoverable from the tenant      on the  date when  the demand  notice is      sent  including   the  rent   which  has      accured  after  service  of  the  demand      notice. When  the notice  was sent  on 7      May, 1976  rent for  the months of April      and May  1976 had become due, and as two      months was  given  for  payment  of  the      arrears, it  would include also the rent      which had accured during the said period      of two months. We are not satisfied that      there is  substance in  the  contention.      The arrears  of  rent  envisaged  by  S.      14(1) (a)  of the  Act are  the  arrears      demanded by  the notice  for payment  of      arrears of  rent. The arrears due cannot      be extended to rent which has fallen due      after service of the notice of demand." The observations have great relevance herein. 9.   We are of the view that the reasoning and conclusion by the learned  Single Judge of the Kerala High Court, contrary to   our    conclusion   hereinabove,   is   incorrect   and unsustainable in  law. The Bench decision relied upon by the learned  Judge   Chellamma  Varghese   vs.  Cicey   (supra), construed the  words  "the  arrears  of  rent"  occuring  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

Section 11(2) (c) of the Act, in the light of the provisions in Section  12 of  the Act.  The approach so made is clearly erroneous. The  decisions referred  to in Chellamma Varghese case, Francis vs. Jacob (1983 KLT 669), and K.G.U. Trust vs. Shri Ram  Chandraji (AIR  1978 SC  287), have  nothing to do with the  controversy raised  herein. Those  decisions  only stated that  "rent due" "or entire amount of rent due", will include the recovery of rent, which became time barred. That aspect does  not arise  herein. We  overrule the decision in Chellama Varghese vs. Cicey. 10.  We are  of the  view that  the judgment of Radhakrishna Menon,J. in  P. Anil  vs. Devaki  and others (1991 KLJ 611), holding that  the words,  "the arrears  of rent" occuring in Section 11(2)  (c) cannot be anything other than the arrears of rent  made mention of in the notice (sent by the landlord under the  proviso to  Section 11(2)  (b) of  the  Act)  and cannot be  extended to  rent which  has fallen due after the service of the notice, represents the correct enunciation of the law on the subject. 11.  The  judgment   of  the   learned  Single  Judge  dated 27.10.1994 is  set aside  and this  appeal is  allowed.  The order passed by the District Judge in R.C.R.P. No. 6 of 1985 dated 31.7.1986  is restored.  However, there  shall  be  no order as to costs.