SIRI CHAND (DECEASED) THR. LRS.versusSURINDER SINGH

                          [2020] 5 S.C.R. 265                             265


             SIRI CHAND (DECEASED) THR. LRS.                              A
                                  v.
                        SURINDER SINGH
                   (Civil Appeal No. 2617 of 2020)
                           JUNE 17, 2020                                  B
            [ASHOK BHUSHAN, M.R. SHAH AND
               V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
       East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 – s. 13 –
Registration Act, 1908 – s. 17(1) (d) – Appellant-landlord filed an
                                                                          C
application u/s. 13 of the Act, 1949 and sought eviction of
respondent-tenant along with arrears of rent, house tax and interest
on the arrears of rent – The Rent Controller held that rent note is
not signed by both the parties – It was further held that although
time is not specified, but it is not a lease deed, so not compulsorily
registrable – The Rent Controller held that tenant was in arrears         D
of rent and house tax so the respondent-tenant is liable to eviction
from the premises in dispute – The Appellate Court did not agree
with the findings of the Rent Controller that rent note was not
compulsory registrable and set aside the judgment of the Rent
Controller – Aggrieved, the appellant filed a revision before the
                                                                          E
High Court and the same was dismissed – On appeal, held: The
present is a case where rent deed does not prescribe any period
for which it is executed – When the lease deed does not mention
the period of tenancy, other conditions of the lease/rent deed and
intention of the parties has to be gathered to find out the true nature
of the lease deed/rent deed – The rent note contains only monthly         F
rent and payment month by month – As per law laid down by the
Supreme Court in Ram Kumar Das, there shall be a presumption
that the tenancy in the present case is monthly tenancy – When the
clauses of rent note are cumulatively read, the intention of the
tenant is more clear that tenancy was only monthly tenancy, which
                                                                          G
could have been terminated on default of payment of rent by 5th
day of any month or by notice of one month – The rent deed did
not confer any right to tenant to continue in the tenancy for a
period of more than one year nor it can be said that tenancy was
created for a period of more than one year – Therefore, the rent
not was not such kind of rent note, which requires compulsory             H
                                   265
266           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2020] 5 S.C.R.


A     registration u/s. 17(1)(d) of the Act, 1908 – The Appellate Court
      after holding that document-rent deed was compulsorily registrable
      and having not registered allowed the appeal – No finding was
      returned by the Appellate Court that tenant was not in default and
      tenant has deposited the necessary amount to save himself from
      eviction – Also, there was no finding by the Appellate Court
B
      regarding the liability of the tenant to pay the house tax – Thus,
      the judgment of the Appellate Court is unsustainable – The
      judgment and decree of the Rent Controller directing eviction of
      the tenant restored.
            Allowing the appeal, the Court
C
            HELD: 1. The rent note, which this Court is considering
      contains only monthly rent and payment month by month. As
      per law laid down by this Court in Ram Kumar Das there shall
      be a presumption that the tenancy in the present case is monthly
      tenancy. When the clauses of rent note are cumulatively read,
D     the intention of the tenant is more than clear that tenancy was
      only monthly tenancy, which could have been terminated on
      default of payment of rent by 5th day of any month or by notice
      of one month. The rent deed did not confer any right to tenant
      to continue in the tenancy for a period of more than one year
E     nor it can be said that tenancy was created for a period of more
      than one year. Clause (9) of rent note, which noticed the promise
      of the tenant of payment of rent by increasing 10% each year
      was a promise contingent on tenancy being continued beyond
      one year but cannot make the tenancy year to year or tenancy
      for a period of more than one year. Present was a case of tenancy
F     for which no period was specified and looking to all the clauses
      cumulatively, this Court finds that the rent note was not such
      kind of rent note, which requires compulsory registration under
      Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908. [Para 19] [275-
      G-H; 276-A-C]
G           2. One may further notice that Rent Controller had
      returned a finding regarding rate of rent @Rs.2,000/- per month
      and further the tenant was liable to pay the house tax, which was
      not paid from 1999 to 2005 and the decree of eviction was passed
      accordingly. The Appellate Court although accepted the finding
      of the Rent Controller that rate of rent was @Rs.2,000/- and not
H     Rs.1,000/- but merely on the finding that landlord cannot claim
 SIRI CHAND (DECEASED) THR. LRS. v. SURINDER SINGH                        267


10% increase of rent every year since the document was not                A
registered had allowed the appeal and set side the judgment.
There is no specific finding by the Appellate Court regarding
the liability of the tenant to pay the house tax. The Appellate
Court after holding that document-rent deed was compulsorily
registrable and having not registered allowed the appeal. No
finding was returned by the Appellate Court that tenant was not           B
in default and tenant has deposited the necessary amount to save
himself from eviction. This Court thus, is of the view that the
judgment of the Appellate Court is unsustainable on the above
ground also. This Court thus, is of the view that the judgment
and decree of the Rent Controller directing eviction ought not            C
to have been interfered by the Appellate Court. [Para 20] [276-
C-G]
      Ram Kumar Das v. Jagdish Chandra Deo, Dhabal Deb
      and Another AIR 1952 SC 23 : [1952] SCR 269
      – relied on.                                                        D
      Kashi Nath and Ors. v. Abdur Rahman Khan and Ors.
      AIR 1922 All. 54 ; Mengh Raj v. Nand Lal and Ors.
      AIR 1939 Lah. 558 – referred to.
                       Case Law Reference
[1952] SCR 269                     relied on             Para 14          E

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2617
of 2020.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 05.09.2018 of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Rent Revision No. 6544       F
of 2009.
     Dr. P.S. Rao, Dr. Satish Chandra, Ms. Archana Rao Arora, and
Ms. Shashi Kiran, Advs. for the appearing parties.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                          G
      ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
      1. Leave granted.
       2. This appeal has been filed questioning the judgment of Punjab
and Haryana High Court dated 05.09.2018 dismissing the revision filed
by the landlord-appellant.                                                H
268            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2020] 5 S.C.R.


A           3. Brief facts giving rise to the appeal are: -
             3.1 The appellant is a landlord of a shop measuring 14 sq.yds.
      Respondent took the shop on rent @Rs.2,000/- per month for running
      a hair cutting and dressing work. The respondent-tenant on 27.07.1993
      executed an agreement/rent deed undertaking to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/
B     - each month. The rent deed was to be applicable w.e.f. 28.07.1993.
      The house tax and electricity bills were undertaken to be paid by the
      tenant. Rent was to be paid up to 5th day in each month to the owner.
      In event, the tenant failed to make the payment of rent up to the
      prescribed date in advance, the owner shall have right to get the shop
      vacated. The shop owner, if is in need of the shop, can serve notice
C     of one month and get the shop vacated from the tenant. The tenant
      also undertook to make the payment of rent money by increasing 10
      per cent each year.
            3.2 An application under Section 13 of East Punjab Urban Rent
      Restriction Act, 1949 was filed by the appellant-landlord dated
D     18.03.2006 praying for eviction of the tenant along with arrears of rent
      and house tax and interest on the arrears of rent. The appellant’s case
      was that rent is not paid from 28.01.2004 to 28.07.2004 and from
      29.07.2004 to 28.02.2005. House tax since 1999 to 2005 amounting to
      Rs.22,302/- was not paid.
E            3.3 The tenant filed objection to the application and contended
      that rate of rent is Rs.1,000/- per month. It was further pleaded that
      at the time of taking shop in question, no other condition was agreed
      or settled. However, the signatures were obtained on some blank paper
      as security by the landlord, which appears to have been fabricated as
F     alleged rent note. The tenant claimed to have paying the rent
      @Rs.1,000/- per month till February, 2006, after which landlord refused
      to accept the rent.
             3.4 The copy of the rent note dated 27.07.1993 was brought on
      the record as Exh. A-1. The Rent Controller held Exh.A-1- rent deed
G     as proved. The Rent Controller held that rent note – Exh.A-1 is not
      signed by both the parties. The Rent Controller further held that
      although time is not specified, but it is not a lease deed, so not
      compulsorily registrable. The Rent Controller also held that tenant was
      liable to pay the house tax.The respondent tendered rent @Rs.2,000/-
      w.e.f. 28.01.2004, which was accepted under protest. The Rent
H     Controller held that tenant was in arrears of rent and house tax so the
 SIRI CHAND (DECEASED) THR. LRS. v. SURINDER SINGH                          269
               [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

respondent-tenant is liable to eviction from the premises in dispute. The   A
Rent Controller held that there exist relationship of landlord and tenant
between the parties. The Rent Controller allowed the application of the
appellant and directed eviction of the respondent from the premises in
question.
       3.5 An appeal was filed by the tenant against the order of the       B
Rent Controller. The Appellate Court did not agree with the findings
of the Rent Controller that document Exh. A-1 was not compulsorily
registrable. Appellate Court observed that perusal of the document
Exh.A-1 reveals that there would be increase in the rent to the tune of
10% every year, hence the document was not executed for a period
of less than a year rather the intention of the parties is clear that it    C
was executed for more than one year, hence the document was required
to be registered under Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908.
However, the Appellate Court rejected the claim of the tenant that rate
of rent was Rs.1,000/- only. The Appellate Court after holding that
document was compulsorily registrable took the view that the clause         D
regarding 10% yearly increase cannot be relied and judgment of Rent
Controller was accordingly set aside and the appeal was allowed.
       3.6 The appellant aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Court
filed a revision before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the
revision referring to the finding of the Appellate Court that rent note –   E
Exh.A-1 was compulsorily registrable. The case of the landlord to
enforce condition in lease deed regarding increase of the rent was not
relied. Aggrieved by the said judgment, this appeal has been filed.
     4. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
No one appeared for the respondent, though served.                          F
      5. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal
contends that rent note dated 27.07.1993, which was signed by the tenant
was valid Rent note and was covered within the definition of lease as
given in the Registration Act, 1908. The document was not registrable
under Section 17(1)(d). It is further contended that the Appellate Court    G
has without recording the finding that there was no default on the part
of tenant in payment of rent and house tax has set aside the order of
the Rent Controller.
       6. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel
for the appellant and has perused the records.
                                                                            H
270            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 5 S.C.R.


A            7. First issue, which has arisen for consideration in this appeal is
      as to whether the rent note dated 27.07.1993, which is brought on
      record as Annexure P-3 to the appeal was a document, which required
      compulsory registration under Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act,
      1908. The second issue to be considered is as to whether the Appellate
      Court could have set aside the decree of eviction without recording
B
      finding that there was no default on the part of the tenant in payment
      of rent and house tax etc. and the amount deposited by the tenant was
      sufficient to save him from eviction.
            8. The Registration Act, 1908 contains the definition of a “lease”
      under Section 2(7), which is to the following effect: -
C
            “(7) “lease” includes a counterpart, kabuliyat, an undertaking to
            cultivate or occupy, and an agreement to lease;”
            9. We may notice that in the present case, the rent note is not
      claimed to be signed by the landlord-appellant rather it is signed only
D     by the respondent-tenant. The trial court after considering materials
      on record has returned the findings that appellant has proved the rent
      note. The case of the respondent that appellant has got his signatures
      on a blank paper has not been accepted. RW1- Surinder Singh,
      respondent in his cross-examination has admitted his signatures on the
      rent note. The trial court also held that by virtue of clause (9) of the
E     rent note, the respondent is liable to pay increased rate @10% every
      year and further he was liable to pay house tax. Landlord having paid
      the house tax, he was entitled to recover the house tax from the
      respondent.
             10. Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act deals with documents
F     of which registration is compulsory. Section 17(1)(d), which is relevant
      for the present case and has been relied by the Appellate Court is as
      follows: -
            “17. Documents of which registration is compulsory.—(l)
            The following documents shall be registered, if the property to
G           which they relate is situate in a district in which, and if they have
            been executed on or after the date on which, Act No. XVI of
            1864, or the Indian Registration Act, 1866, or the Indian
            Registration Act, 1871, or the Indian Registration Act, 1877, or
            this Act came or comes into force, namely:—
H           XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
 SIRI CHAND (DECEASED) THR. LRS. v. SURINDER SINGH                         271
               [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

      (d) leases of immovable property from year to year, or for any       A
      term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent;”
        11. As per Section 17(1)(d), leases of immovable property from
year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly
rent requires compulsory registration. Whether the rent deed can be
treated to be a lease of immovable property – (i) from year to year,       B
(ii) for any term exceeding one year, (iii) or reserving a yearly rent?
      12. We need to notice the relevant clauses of the rent deed to
find out as to whether Section 17(1)(d) was applicable in the facts of
the present case making Exh.A-1 compulsorily registrable. The
agreement/rent deed, which is written and signed by the respondent         C
alone contains 16 clauses, which were promises made by the respondent
written in the rent deed. Clause 1 to 3, 9, 10, 14, 15 and 16, which are
relevant, are as follows: -
      “1) I will make the payment of the sum of Rupees 2,000/- (Two
      Thousand only) each month in advance in cash currency up to          D
      date 5 (Five) to the owner of the shop, Sri Chand.
      2) The rent deed will be applicable from 28.07.1993
      3) The amount of the house tax and the electricity bills regarding
      the abovesaid shop will be paid by me.
                                                                           E
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
      9) I will be bound for making the payment of the rent money by
      increasing 10% (ten percent) each year.
      10) If I may not make the payment of the rent up to the prescribed
      date in advance and then there will be right to the shop owner       F
      that he can get the shop vacated.
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
      14) I have paid the amount of Rupees 3600/- (Three Thousand
      Six Hundred only) to the shop owner as a security, vacating the
      shop, handing over the possession to the shop owner, I will be       G
      entitled for the refunding of this security amount.
      15) If the shop owner is in need of this shop and then serving
      the notice of one-month period, he can get the shop vacated from
      me, there will be no objection to me in this regard.
                                                                           H
272            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2020] 5 S.C.R.


A           16) If in any situation, I may not comply with this agreement/
            rent deed and then there will be right to the shop owner that
            vacating the shop forcible, he can take over the possession from
            me and may dispossess me, there will be no objection and claim
            of mine or any of my legal heir.”
B             13. Clause (1) of the rent deed specifically makes it clear that
      monthly tenancy was created on payment of rent of Rs.2,000/- per
      month. The payment was to be made before 5th of each month to the
      owner. The rent deed does not provide for any specific period for
      which the rent deed was executed. When a rent deed/lease deed does
      not provide for a period and when it provides for payment of rent
C     monthly, whether tenancy can be treated from year to year or for any
      term exceeding one year or reserving a yearly rent? The rent deed
      does not reserve yearly rent, hence the third condition as noted above
      is not applicable. The rent deed is not also a lease of immovable property
      from year to year. There is no mention in the rent deed that it is a
D     lease from year to year, hence the said condition is also not applicable.
             14. Only clause which need to be, thus, considered is as to
      whether the rent deed was “for any term exceeding one year”. The
      present is a case where rent deed does not prescribe any period for
      which it is executed. When the lease deed does not mention the period
      of tenancy, other conditions of the lease/rent deed and intention of the
E
      parties has to be gathered to find out the true nature of the lease deed/
      rent deed. The two conditions written in the rent note are also relevant
      to notice. First, if payment of rent in any month is not made up to 5th
      of month, owner shall have right to get the shop evicted and second if
      the owner is in need of shop, he by serving notice of one month can
F     get the shop vacated. This Court had occasion to consider the provision
      of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and noted the
      rule of construction, which is to be applied when there is no period
      agreed upon between the parties in a lease deed. In Ram Kumar Das
      Vs. Jagdish Chandra Deo, Dhabal Deb and Another, AIR 1952
      SC 23 after quoting Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882,
G     this Court held that when there is no period agreed upon between the
      parties, duration has to be determined by referring to the purpose and
      object with which the tenancy is created. Following observations were
      made: -
            “13. The section lays down a rule of construction which is to be
H           applied when there is no period agreed upon between the parties.
 SIRI CHAND (DECEASED) THR. LRS. v. SURINDER SINGH                           273
               [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

      In such cases the duration has to be determined by reference to        A
      the object or purpose for which the tenancy is created. The rule
      of construction embodied in this section applies not only to
      express leases of uncertain duration but also to leases implied
      by law which may be inferred from possession and acceptance
      of rent and other circumstances. It is conceded that in the case
                                                                             B
      before us the tenancy was not for manufacturing or agricultural
      purposes. The object was to enable the lessee to build structures
      upon the land. In these circumstances, it could be regarded as a
      tenancy from month to month, unless there was a contract to
      the contrary……………………………………”
       15. This Court further held that “it has no doubt been recognised     C
in several cases that the mode in which a rent is expressed to be payable
affords a presumption that the tenancy is of a character corresponding
thereto. Consequently, when the rent reserved is an annual rent, the
presumption would arise that the tenancy was an annual tenancy unless
there is something to rebut the presumption.”                                D
        16. Clauses of the rent note makes it clear that there was a
categorical promise that tenancy is a monthly tenancy and rent is paid
every month by 5th of every month. It is true that although in clause
(9), it was mentioned that the tenant will be bound for making the rent
money by increasing 10% each year, that was promise by the tenant            E
to increase the rent by 10% each year for the period of tenancy, though
the period of tenancy was unspecified. Clause (9) may or may not
operate in view of specific clauses reserving right of landlord to evict
the tenant on committing default of non-payment of rent by 5th of every
month or when landlord requires shop by giving one month’s notice.
Clause (9) was a contingent clause which binds the tenant to increase        F
the rent by 10% each year, which was contingent on tenancy to continue
for more than a year, but that clause cannot be read to mean that the
tenancy was for a period of more than one year. We may notice a
judgment of Allahabad High Court in Kashi Nath and Ors. Vs. Abdur
Rahman Khan and Ors., AIR 1922 All. 54. Allahabad High Court                 G
had occasion to consider an agreement where defendant had contracted
to pay eight annas a year as a rent of the site. Section 17 of the
Registration Act, 1866 was also referred to and relied by the High
Court. The High Court held that when the terms of the lease are
looked at, one sees that though in fact it might continue for an undefined
number of years, there was no certainty that it would last for more          H
274            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2020] 5 S.C.R.


A     than one year, hence lease was held not exceeding a term of one year.
      Following was held by the High Court:-
            “……………………………………The terms of the kabuliyat
            have been read to us. Shortly, they are to the effect that the
            Zamindar let the site to Sheo Prasad on a payment of eight annas
B           a year and incidental obligations but the kabuliyat provided that
            if the eight annas was not paid in any one year, or if the tenant
            failed to make the incidental payments for marriages et cetra,
            the lease would thereby some to an end. Furthermore, the lease
            would also come to an end if the lessee did not conduct himself
            properly towards the Zemindar. Therefore, when the terms of
C           the lease are looked at one sees that though in fact it might
            continue for an undefined number of years, there was no
            certainty that it would last beyond the term of one year.
            Therefore, it did not come within the classification of Section
            17(d) as being a lease for a term exceeding one year. That being
D           so, it was not a document which had compulsorily to be
            registered……………………………….”
             17. We may notice another judgment of Lahore High Court in
      Mengh Raj Vs. Nand Lal and Ors., AIR 1939 Lah.558. In the
      above case, in the lease, rate of rent was payable per mensem, condition
E     of payment of annual rent was also mentioned there. The High Court
      noted the condition of the lease and has also applied the provisions of
      Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908 and held that the said
      lease was not registrable. In paragraph 1 of the judgment, the contents
      of the lease have been quoted, which are to the following effect: -

F           “……………………The main provisions of the lease in question
            may be translated as follows:
            We, Nand Lal and Murli, sweepers of Hazro, have taken on rent
            a house from MenghBaj of Hazro on condition of payment of
            an annual rent of Rs. 40-8-0 for a period of one year certain.
G           We agree that we will live as tenants in this house and will pay
            rent at the rate of Rs. 3-6-0 per mensem, month by month on a
            receipt being granted to us by the landlord. In default of payment
            of rent the landlord can eject us and recover arrears of rent in
            any manner he likes. After the expiry of the term it will be the
            option of the landlord to give the house to us on rent or eject us
H           and give it to other tenants. We will have no objection to this.
 SIRI CHAND (DECEASED) THR. LRS. v. SURINDER SINGH                           275
               [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

      The term of the lease is from the 1st Har, Sambat 1984 to the          A
      end of Jeth, Sambat 1985. We have been tenants under the
      landlord for a long time and have been paying rent.”
      18. After considering the conditions of the lease and referring to
Section 17(1)(d), the High Court laid down following in paragraph 3: -
      “3. On a construction of the above deed it is obvious that it is       B
      not a lease from year to year, nor for a term exceeding one year,
      and the sole question is whether or not by it a yearly rent has
      been reserved which brings it within the letter of the Section. In
      Mt. Aishan v. Municipal Committee Lahore 92 Ind.Cas. 526
      Campbell J. held that a mere recital of an annual rate of rent         C
      did not constitute the lease, a lease reserving a yearly rent within
      the meaning of Section 17, Registration Act. The lease in that
      case was determinable at any time at the will of the landlord. In
      the present case after the expiry of one year for which the lease
      was granted, this lease too was determinable at the end of Jeth,
      Sambat 1985. In this aspect the present lease constituted no more      D
      than a tenancy-at-will after the expiry of the first year and so
      appears to be covered by the decision of Campbell, J. referred
      to above. There is considerable body of authority for the
      proposition that where there is a tenancy-at-will created even
      though the rent is fixed and is payable annually, the document is      E
      not subject to compulsory registration. Reference in this
      connexion may be made to Muhammad Masam Khan v. Mt.
      Bakhtawar (1895) 70 P.R. 1895 where a Division Bench held
      on a construction of the document before them that only those
      leases must be registeredwhich are in terms for a period
      exceeding one year, a lease reserving a yearly rent, and               F
      containing no other provision establishing a tenancy-at-will, being
      presumably a lease from year to year.”
       19. We may notice that in the above case although the annual
rent was mentioned but, however, payment of monthly rent was
mentioned in the lease deed. The rent note, which we are considering         G
contains only monthly rent and payment month by month. As per law
laid down by this Court in Ram Kumar Das(supra) there shall be a
presumption that the tenancy in the present case is monthly tenancy.
When the clauses of rent note are cumulatively read, the intention of
the tenant is more than clear that tenancy was only monthly tenancy,         H
276                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2020] 5 S.C.R.


A     which could have been terminated on default of payment of rent by 5 th
      day of any month or by notice of one month. The rent deed did not
      confer any right to tenant to continue in the tenancy for a period of
      more than one year nor it can be said that tenancy was created for a
      period of more than one year. Clause (9), which noticed the promise
      of the tenant of payment of rent by increasing 10% each year was a
B
      promise contingent on tenancy being continued beyond one year but
      cannot make the tenancy year to year or tenancy for a period of more
      than one year. Present was a case of tenancy for which no period
      was specified and looking to all the clauses cumulatively, we find that
      the rent note was not such kind of rent note, which requires compulsory
C     registration under Section 17(1)(d).
             20. We may further notice that Rent Controller had returned a
      finding regarding rate of rent @Rs.2,000/- per month and further the
      tenant was liable to pay the house tax, which was not paid from 1999
      to 2005 and the decree of eviction was passed accordingly. The
D     Appellate Court although accepted the finding of the Rent Controller
      that rate of rent was @Rs.2,000/- and not Rs.1,000/- but merely on
      the finding that landlord cannot claim 10% increase of rent every year
      since the document was not registered had allowed the appeal and set
      side the judgment. There is no specific finding by the Appellate Court
      regarding the liability of the tenant to pay the house tax. The Appellate
E     Court after holding that document-rent deed was compulsorily registrable
      and having not registered allowed the appeal. No finding was returned
      by the Appellate Court that tenant was not in default and tenant has
      deposited the necessary amount to save himself from eviction. We,
      thus, are of the view that the judgment of the Appellate Court is
F     unsustainable on the above ground also. We, thus, are of the view that
      the judgment and decree of the Rent Controller directing eviction ought
      not to have been interfered by the Appellate Court.
            21. In result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of
      the Rent Controller directing eviction of the tenant is restored. No costs.
G
      Ankit Gyan                                                   Appeal allowed.




H