Holding

The 'first hearing' is the date when the court actually hears the matter after the written statement and framing of issues, not the returnable day, making the tender on that date valid.

Summary

Sham Lal, a statutory tenant, was sued for eviction under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for alleged non‑payment of rent. The summons returnable date was 26‑06‑1969, on which the tenant appeared and sought an adjournment; the written statement and tender of arrears were filed on 02‑07‑1969. The Rent Controller held that the first hearing was the returnable date, deeming the tender invalid and ordering eviction. The appellate authority reversed, treating the date of actual hearing (after filing of the written statement) as the first hearing, thus validating the tender. The High Court restored the Rent Controller’s order. The Supreme Court held that "first hearing of the application" means the date when the court actually applies its mind—after issues are framed—not the mere appearance date, and therefore the tender on 02‑07‑1969 was valid, setting aside the eviction order.

Issues considered

The meaning of 'first day of hearing of the application' in the proviso to Section 13(2) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
Whether the tenant's tender of arrears on 2 July 1969 constitutes a valid tender under the Act.
Whether a mistake of the court in fixing the first hearing date can be held against the tenant.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order 10 Rule I, s. Order 14 Rule 1(5), s. Order 15 Rule I
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949s. 13(2)
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972s. 20(4)

Subjects

rent controlevictionfirst hearingtender of rentstatutory tenantinterpretation of statute

Judgment

SHAM LAL (DEAD) BY LRS.
v. A
ATME NANO JAIN SABHA (REGO.) DAL BAZAR

DECEMBER 10, 1986

"
[M.P. THAKKAR AND B.C. RAY, JJ.] B

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, section 13(2}-Meaning
of the word "First day ofhearing ofthe app/ication"-Whether means the date
of first appearance by the defendant-tenant or the date on which the Rent
Controller assesses the arrears of rent due etc.
The appellant is a tenant in respect of a room forming part of the property C
Unit No. B-IX-148 (New), Chaura Bazar, Ludhiana, which has been rented on
a monthly rental of Rs. 23 by the landlady Smt. Guran Devi on the basis of
rent deed dated 7th July, 1967 for a period of three months. After the expiry of
the term of the tenancy, he continued in possession of the suit premises as a
statutory tenant under Smt. Guran Devi. Smt. Guran Devi, however, gifted
away this property in favour of the Respondent on February 13, 1968 and D
from that date the appellant became a tenant under the respondent. The
ejectment was sought on the ground of default in payment of rent from
13.2.1968 till the date of filing of the application for ejectment in July, 1969
under Section 13 of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The
summons of this application was served on the tenant-appellant and the
returnable date was fixed for 26.6.1969. On that date, the appellant appeared E
before the Rent Controller, Ludhiana with his counsel and prayed for
adjournment for filing written statement. The case was adjourned to 2.7.1969.
On that date the written statement was filed and the tenant tendered a .sum of
Rs. 336 on account of arrears ofrent from 13.2.1968 to 12.6.1969 together with
Rs. 15 as interest and Rs. 25 as costs as fixed hy the Rent Controller. The
landlord accepted the amount under protest. One of the issues framed in the F
. said case was whether the tender was a valid tender within the meaning of
v"'' proviso to section 13(2) ofEast Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The
.~ Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition being of the view that since on
the first day of appearance the tenant did not tender payment he was in
jefault. On appeal, the appellate authority reversed the finding holding that G
the next date fixed by the Rent Controller for filing written statement and on
which date the payment was tendered and received by the landlord under
protest was the "fll'St day of hearing" contemplated by proviso to section
13(2)(i) of the Rent Act. In Revision, the High Court restored the order of the
Rent Controller, Hence the appeal by special leave.
Allowing the appeal, the Court, H

509
510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987) 1 S.C.R.

HELD: The day mentioned in the summons i.~. 26.6.1969, in the instant
...,.
A case, cannot be treated to be day of first heruing of the ejectment application
but it is the day for appearance of the defendcnt as on that day the Court does
not take up the hearing or apply its mind to the hearing of the application. It is
only after written statement is filed, the issues are framed and hearing
commences. (513A]

B The object of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act as stated in :111
the Preamble to the Act is to restrict the in orease of rent of certain premises
situated within the limits of urban areas and· eviction of tenants therefrom.
From the objects of this Act it is abundantly clear that this Act was enacted

~
with the object of affording protection to the tenants against arbitrar-y increase
of rent of certain premises within the limits of urban areas as well as from

c
eviction of the tenants from the rented premises. In this context, it is
imperative that the word "the first hearing of the application" have to be
interpreted in a manner which promote the object of this beneficial
...-
legislation. Viewed from this aspect it must be held that the words "first
hearing of the application'" as used-in provi;so (i) to sub-section 2 of section 13
of the said Act does not mean the day fixed •for return of the summons or the re-
D turnable day but the day when the Court applies its mind to the case. [SISE-G !
Ved ~rakash v. Vishwa Mohan, [1981) 3 SCC 667, followed.
Mangat Rai v. Ved Prakash, 1969 Vol. I Rent Control Reporter p. 96;
Shah Amba/a/ Chhota/a/ & Ors., v. Shah Baba/ Das Dayabhai & Ors., AIR
1964 (Gujarat) p. 9 and Khanderao Malkarjun Dhotre v. Anandrao ~-
E Laxmanrao Mashalkar, AIR 1959 (Bombay) p. 471, approved.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDJC":ION: Civil Appeal No. 918of1973
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.12.1986 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No. 895 of 1972.
S.K. Mehta. M.K. Dua and Aman Vachher for the Appellant.
··~
4
F
S.N. Kacker and B.P. Maheshwari for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B.C. RAY, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the
judgment and order passed on 27th February, 1973 in Civil Revision No. 895 of
G 1972 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana whereby the revision case was
allowed reversing the judgment and order of the appellate authority and
allowing the application for ejectment. The tenant-appellant was granted three
months' time to vacate the shop and was also directed to deposit arrears of rent,
•
if any within one month from the dak of the order. He was also directed to
deposit advance rent for three months ·on the date of the order failing which he
H will be evicted on the expiry of one month.
SHAM LAL v. ATME NAND JAIN SABHA [RAY, J.] 511

The appellant is a tenant in respect of a room forming part of the A
property unit No. B-VI-33(old) and B-IX-148(New), Chaura Bazar,
Ludhiana, which has been rented on a monthly rental of Rs. 23 by the landlady
S mt. Goran Devi on the basis ofrent deed dated 7th July, 1967 fora period of
three months. After the expiry of the term of the tenancy, he continued in
possession of the suit premises as a statutory tenant under Smt. Guran Devi.
Smt. Guran Devi however, gifted away this property in favour of the B
Respondent on February 13, 1968 and from that date the appellant became a
tenant under the respondent. The ejectment was sought on the ground of
default in payment of rent from 13.2.1968 till the date of filing of the
application for ejectment in July, 1969 under Sec. 13 of East Punjab Urban
Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The summons of this application was served on
the tenant-appellant and the returnable date was fixedfor 26.6.1969. On that
date, the appellant appeared before the Rent Controller, Ludhiana with his
c
counsel and prayed for adjournment for filing written statement. The case was
adjourned to 2.7.1969. On that date the written statement was filed and the
tenant tendered a sum of Rs. 336 on account of arrears of rent from 13.2.1968
to 12.6.1969 together with Rs. 15 as interest and Rs. 25 as costs as fixed by the
Rent Controller. The landlord accepted the amount under protest. One of the D
issues framed in the said case was whether the tender was a valid tender within
the meaning of proviso to Sec. 13(2) of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction
Act, 1949.
The Rent Controller after hearing the parties found that the tenant-
appellant having failed to tender the arrears of rent and interest at 6% per
annum on such arrears together with the costs of the application, on 26.6. I 969 E
which according to him was the first hearing of the application for ejectment,
the tenant was not entitled to get the protection of Sec. 13(2)(i) proviso. The
Rent Controller repelled the contention made on behalf of the tenant.that the
said date was not the date of first hearing and that the cost of the application
having not been assessed on 26.6.1969, that day cannot be taken as the first day F
of hearing of the application and the tenant having deposited all the arrears of
rent together with interest and costs as assessed on the next date i.e. 2.7.1969 he
could not be considered to be ·a defaulter. In that view of the matter the Rent
Controller allowed the application for ejectment and directed the tenant to
vacate the premises and to deliver possession to ·the landlord-petitioner in
respect of the room in que.tion within one month of the date of the order.
G
Against this judgment and order the tenant filed an appeal being
M.C.A. No. 165/ 131 of 1970 before the appellate authority Ludhiana under
the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. The appellate authority reversed
t!Je order of the Rent Controller by holding that as the Rent Controller failed
to discharge his duty in assessing the costs to be deposited by the tenant along
with the arrears of rent and interest on 26.6.1969, the tenant cannot be H
512 SUPREME COuRT REPORTS [1987] I S.C.R.

A penalised for the mistake of the Court and the dep0sit that has been made by
the tenant on ihe next date i.e. 2. 7. l %9 when the cost of the application was
assessed by the Rent Controller, should be treated as deposit made in
accordance with the provisions of Sec:. 13 of the said Act. It has been further
held that for the mistake of the Court or its officers nobody could be made to
suffer. The appellate authority further held that the weirds 'first day of hearing'
B presuppose the existence of an occasion enabling the parties to be heard and
the court to hear them in respect of the cause. The tender was accordingly held
to be valid tender within the meanin.~ of the provisions of the said Act. The
appeal was allowed and the order of e ;iction made by the Rent Controller was
set aside.
Against this judgment and order a Revision Application being Civil
C Revision No. 895 of 1972 was filed before the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana. The said Revision Case wa:; allowed by holding that the day of first
hearing was 26.6.1969 when the tenant appeared before the Rent Controller
with his counsel and sought time for filing written statement and the tender of
the arrears of rent together with interest and costs of the application being not
D made on that date, the subsequent tender of the same on 2.7.1969 was not a
valid tender within the meaning of proviso (i) to sub-Sec. 2 of Section 13 of the
said Act. An order was made dirn:ting the tenant-appellant to vacate the
premises within three months. The tenant was also directed to deposit the rent
for three months within one month from the date of this order, in default he
will suffer 'eviction after expiry of one month.
E It is against this judgment anc order the instant appeal on special leave
has been preferred before this Cornt.
The only question that pose' itself for consideration in this appeal is
whether the date of appearance as ffentioned in the summons i.e. 26.6.1969 is
the date of first hearing of the application for ejectment and non-payment or
F non-tendering of arrears of rent together with interest and costs of the
application on that very date will make the tenant liable for eviction from the
rented premises on the ground of default. In the instant case on the returnable
day of the summons the tenant-de:'endant appeared with his counsel i.e. on
26.6.1969 and prayed for an adjournment for filing written statement. The
case was accordingly adjourned to '.!.7.1969. It is also pertinent to note that on
G the returnable day i.e. 26.6.1969 th' Rent Controller did not make any order
assessing the costs of the applicatioo which was required to be deposited along
with arrears of rent and interest at 6% per annum on such arrears. It is on
2.7.1969, the Rent Controller as,,ssed the cost of the application and the
tenant-appellant deposited the arrears of rent up-to-date together with interest
at the rate of6% on such arrears and the costs assessed by the Rent Controller
H on that date. The said amount tendered in the Court was accepted by the
landlord under protest.
SHAM LAL v. ATME NANO JAIN SABHA [RAY, J.] 513
The day mentioned in the summons i.e. 26.6.1969 in our considered
opinion cannot be. treated to be the day of first hearing of the ejectment A
application but it is the day for appearance of the defendent as on that day the
Court does not take up the hearing or apply its mind to the hearing of the ,
application. It is only after written statement is filed, the issues are framed and
hearing commences .. We draw inspiration and support from a decision of this
Court rendered in Ved Prakash v. Vishwa Mohan[\981] 3 SCC667., wherein
this Court was concerned with the same expression viz. 'first hearing' B
employed in Sec. 20(4) of the U.P. Rent Act of 1972 (prior to the amendment

..;-
of U.P. Act XXVlll of 1976) which is in pari-materia with the corresponding
provision in the Punjab Rent Act. The analogous provisions in these two Rent
Acts ih so for as material are reproduced in juxtaposition hereunder.
Sec. 20(4) of U.P. Urban Buildings Sec. 13 of the East Punjab Urban
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Rent Restriction Act, 1949 c
Eviction) Act, 1972
"'In any suit for eviction on the "Eviction of tenants-(!) xxxxx (2)
ground mentioned in clause (a) of xxxxx If the Controller, after giving
Sub-Sec. (2) if at the first hearing of the tenant a reasonable opportunity
the suit the tenant unconditionally of showing cause against the appli-
D
pays or tenders to the landlord the cation, is satisfied:-
entire amount of rent and damages (i) that the tenant has not paid or
for use and occupation of the build- tendered the rent due by him in
ing from him (such damages for use respect of the building or rented
and occupation being calculated land ............ provided that if th~
at the same rate as rent) together tenant on the first hearing of the
with interest thereon at the rate of application for ejectment after E
nine per cent per· annum and the due service, pays or tenders the
lanlord 's costs of the suit in respect arrears of rent and interest at six
thereof ... the court may, in lieu of per cenl per annum on such
passing a decree for eviction on that arrears together with the cost of
ground pass an order relieving the application assessed by the Con-
tenant against his liability for troller, the tenant shall be
F '
eviction on that ground." (Emphasis deemed to h.ave duly paid or
added). tendered the rent within the time
aforesaid.
(ii) x x x
(iii) x x x
(iv) x x x G
(v) x x x
the Controller may make an
order-directing the tenant to put
the landlord in possession of the
building or granted land . . . "
(Emphasis added) H
514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] l S.C.R.

This Court whilst interpreting the critical expression "first hearing"
A enunciated the law as under:
"The question of law raised before us may perhaps be
pronounced upon as it is of general importance. Section 20(4)
of the Act which we have exceqited above fixes the crunical
date for deposit of rent as "at the lirst hearing of the suit." What
B is "the first hearing of the suit'~ Certain decisions have been
cited before us of the Allahabad High Court which indicate
that "the first hearing of the su't" is when, after framing of
issues, the suit is posted for trial, that is, production of
evidence ...... We see none here and therefore, adopt as correct
the decision of the High Court regarding the meaning of the
c expression "at the first hearing of the suit". We may however
add that the expression "at the fin.t hearing of the suit"is also to
be found in Order 10, Rule I, Or:ler 14 Rule 1(5) an Order 15,
Rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure. These provisions
indicate that "the first hearing of the suit" can never be earlier
than the date fixed for the preliminary examination of the
D parties (Order IO Rule I) and the!:ettlement of issues(Order 14,
Rule 1(5)."
The Punjab and Haryana High Court itself in Mangat Rai v. Ved
Prakash ( 1969 Vol. I Rent control Reporter p. 96 i has expressed the same view
in paragraph 15 of the judgment:- >-1.,.
E "15. The principles that can be d·,duced from the plethora of
case law on the point, includin£. the authorities referred to
above, are consistent with the literal meaning of word 'hearing'
which in its Dictionary sense means 'the listening of evidence
and pleading in Court of law, the Irial of a cause'. It seems to be
abundantly clear that in order to constitute, 'first hearing'
F within the meaning of Sec. I 3(2)(i) proviso, the following pre-
requisites must co-exist:-
(i) There should be a 'hea:ing' which presupposes the
existence of an occasion enablin~ the parties to be heard and
the court to hear them in respect of the cause.
G (ii) Such hearing should be lhe first in point of time after
due service of the summons/ noti.;e on the tenant.
Both these essentials are positive, and in the absence of either of them,
there can be no '"first hearing!"
It appears that there is consensus in regard to the interpretation of the
H expression 'first day' in the context of the rent legislations of several other
SHAM LAL v. A•ME NAND JAIN SABHA [RAY, J.) 515
.-..;.,.,
states, fOr instance, the Gujarat High Court in Shah Ambalal Chhotalal and
others. v. Shah Baba/ Das Dayabhai and Ors., AIR [1964] (Gujarat) p. 9,
dealing with the identical question as to the meaning of the words "the first day A
of the hearing of the suit" as provided in sub-Sec. 3(b) of Sec. 12 of Bombay
Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 has observed after
considering several decisions that "the words 'the first day of hearing' as
meaning not the day for the return of the summons or the returnable day, but
the day on which the Court applies its mind to the case which ordinarily would B
be at the time when either the issues are determined o·r evidence ta"ken."
Similar view was also taken by the High Court of Bombay earlier in the
case of Khanderao Ma/karjun Dhotre v.Anandrao Laxmanrao Mashalkar.
AIR [1959] (Bombay) p.471 It has been observed in this case as follows:~
"I am of opinion that "the first day of hearing" in S. 12(3)(b)
means, not the day fixed for return of the summ9ns or what is C
sometimes called the returnable day, but the day on which the
learned Judge applies his mind to the case, which ordinarily he
would do at the time when the issues are determined, is the day
mentioned and that is the day before which the rent should
have been paid."
D
It was tried to be contended that these decisions being rendered in
connection with the 'suit' cannot be taken into consideration in the case of a
'proceeding' before the Rent Controller. We do not find any substance in this
> "'
' cont"ention which seeks to draw a distinction without a difference in substance.
It is appropriate to point out in this connection that the object of the East
Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act as stated in the Preamble to the Act is to E

- restrict the increase of rent of certain premises situated within the limits of
urban areas and eviction of tenants therefrom. From the objects of this Act it is
abundantly clear that this Act was enacted with the object of affording
protection to the tenants against arbitrary increase of rent of certain premises
within the limits of urban areas as well as from eviction of the tenants from the
rented premises. In this context, it is imperative that the word "the first hearing F
of the application" have to be interpretted in a manner which promote the
object of this beneficial legislation. Viewed from this aspect we cannot but
hold that the words "first hearing of the application" as used in provise (i) to
sub-section 2 of Section 13 of the said Act does not mean the day fixed for
return of the summons or the returnable day but the day when the Court
applies its mind to the case. ' G
In the premises aforesaid, we allow the appeal and set aside the order of
eviction passed by the High Court and confirm the judgment and order of the
lower appellate coli.rt dismissing the application for eviction. There will
however be no order as to costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case ..
S.R. Appeal allowed. H