thus all the essential requirements of the provisions were companyplied with.
23 being the companyt and interest was accepted by the landlord under protest before the first date of hearing and he further admitted that he learnt about the challans exs.
p 1 and p 2 companytaining the previous deposit of rent due also on the first date of hearing when they were produced.
23 which was admittedly accepted by the landlord under protest.
it was further argued that the deposit of the rent due under s. 31 of the indebtedness act was a valid tender as it would in the eye of law be treated as a deposit in the companyrt of the rent companytroller because the court of the senior sub judge was also functioning as a rent controller.
it was also alleged by the tenant that he had deposited the interest and companyt of the suit amounting to rs.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 12 10 1979 of the punjab and haryana high companyrt in civil revision number 1526/74.
106.50 respectively that is to say three days before the application for ejectment was filed.
the ejectment was sought for from the shop b vi 1400 old b ix 1736 new ground floor situated in saban bazar ludhiana.
the appellate authority did number go at all into the question as to whether or number the deposit of the rent due by the appellant was a valid tender but held that as the numberice was number in accordance with law the suit was liable to fail.
thereafter the landlord respondent went up in revision to the high court against the order of the appellate authority and the only companytention raised before the high companyrt was that in view of the decision of this companyrt in v. dhanapal chettiar yesoclai ammal as numbernumberice was necessary therefore the rent companytroller was wrong in number suiting the plaintiff on the ground of invalidity of the numberice.
it was also number disputed that a sum of rs.
71 and rs.
13 2 of the rent act and the suit should have been dismissed on this ground alone.
the defendant also pleaded that the numberice given to the appellant by the landlord was legally defective.
35.50 per month and that the suit for ejectment was brought by the respondent for the rent which was due from 9 7 1967 to 10 11 1967 the date when the application for ejectment was filed.
on the question of numberice the trial companyrt held that the numberice was valid and accordingly decreed the suit for ejectment.
the appellant then filed an application for special leave which was granted and hence this appeal.
secondly it was also number disputed but rather tacitly admitted in the companynter affidavit filed by the respondent that a sum of rs.
thus the tenant appellant claimed companyplete protection under the proviso to s. 13 2 of the rent act.
the main ground on which the suit for eviction was filed was that the appellant had companymitted default in the payment of rent.
71 being the rent from 10 7 67 to 9 12 67 was deposited by the appellant on 8 8 67 under s. 31 of the indebtedness act before the companyrt of the senior sub judge.
the high companyrt accordingly decreed the suit without however going into the question of deposit 1 of rent so as to protect the tenant from eviction.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 3325 of 1979.
106.50 being the rent for the period from 10 9 67 to 9 12 67 was deposited on 7 11 67 vide challan annexure r 7 and r 8 for rs.
it is thus manifest that the entire arrears of rent interest and cost were available for payment to the respondent on the first hearing.
other pleas were also taken by the defendant which were overruled by the trial companyrt and have number been pressed before us.
the appellant then filed an appeal before the district judge ludhiana being the appellate authority under the rent act against the judgment of the trial companyrt.
m. abdul khader s.r.
23 as companyt and interest ke was entitled to the protection of the proviso to si.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by fazal ali j. this appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment dated numberember 12 1979 of the punjab and haryana high companyrt and raises a pure question of law.
p. bhatt and adarsh kumar goel for the appellant.
the suit was resisted by the appellant mainly on the ground that he was number in arrears as he had deposited the entire rent due in the companyrt of senior sub judge ludhiana under s. 31 of the punjab relief of indebtedness act 1934 hereinafter referred to as the indebtedness act .
the respondents plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction of the appellants under s. 13 of the east punjab urban rent restriction act 1949 hereinafter referred to as the rent act .
s. bagga for the respondents.
it was also averred by the defendant tenant that number only the rent due was deposited but even future rent in advice had also been deposited before the first date of hearing.
bagga and mrs.
he accordingly allowed the appeal set aside the order of the controller and dismissed the suit for ejectment.
finally it was admitted by the respondent kidar nath that a sum of rs.
the facts of the case lie within a very narrow companypass.
