- (1.)The only question involved in this appeal by special leave is whether the amount deposited by the tenant/respondent under Section 6-A 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.
(2.)The factual matrix of the case is that the tenant/respondent filed an application under Section 6-A of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') before the learned Rent Controller, Ambala on 19-5-88 alleging that the lndlord 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 amounting to Rs. 7500/- under Section 6-A 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 not receive the rent in spite 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 6-A 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 the order of the Rent Controller made under Section 6-A at any stage. Thus, the assertion of the tenant both in the application under Section 6-A 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 unrebbuted. The learned Rent Controller in spite 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 12-2-1987 to 11-5-1988 under Section 6-A 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 11-5-88 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."

(3.)The order of ejectment dated 25-7-94 was 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.