2002 2 SCR 14 The following Order of the Court was delivered The point that arises for companysideration in this appeal is whether the first appellant, a tenant, can avail protection of the first proviso to Section 13 2 of the Haryana Urban Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1973 on payment of the arrears of rent and other amounts specified therein by the third appellant, his son.
The respondent filed eviction petition on the ground of number payment of rent of the premises from October l, 1995 till the date of filing of the case on December 6, 1995 under Section 13 2 of the Haryana Urban Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1973 for short, the Act The appellants companytested the case.
The learned Rent Controller accepted the companytention of the appellants that there was a valid tender of rent within the ambit of the said provision and dismissed the eviction petition on March 31, 1997.
3 paid the arrears of rent for the said period together with other specified sums.
750 plus house tax.
On dismissal of their revision by order dated March 18, 1999, the appellants have companye up in appeal by special leave of this Court.
On July l, 1990, a rental agreement was executed between the respondent and appellant Nos.
This appeal is from the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissing the appellants Civil Revision No.
680/17 situated in Prem Market, New Subzi Mandi Road.
3 who is the son of appellant No.
However, on appeal by the respondent, the Appellate Authority took the view that the tender of rent by appellant No.
l and 2 are brothers and are tenants of a shop bearing No.
2864 of 1998 on March 18, 1999.
l, has been residing with him and helping him in his business.
Appellant Nos.
Appellant No.
Appellant No.
The appellants companytended that it was a valid tender on behalf of the first appellant.
The respondent accepted the same without prejudice to her rights.
l and 2 agreeing to let out the premises on a monthly rent of Rs.
They along with Salig Ram companytinued as partners of the firm.
Kaitahal for short.
The respondent is the landlady of the premises.
the premises .
