JUDGMENT
V.S. Aggarwal, J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed by Samp Lal, hereinafter described as “the petitioner” directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Amritsar, dated 28.4.1999. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned Appellate Authority had set aside the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Amritsar, dated 8.12.1995 and instead the petitioner was directed to be evicted from the suit premises.
2. The relevant, facts are that the respondents had filed eviction petition dated 24.7.1992 against the petitioner on the ground that he is in arrears of rent from 1.10.1990. The application was typed on 24.7.1992 but actually had been filed on 3.8.992. On being served with the summons, the petitioner appeared in the Court on 21.10.1992 and tendered the arrears of rent from 1.10.1990 to 31.7.1992. Needless to state that the agreed rent has been stated to be Rs. 84/- per month. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the petition holding that the interest calculated by the respondents at the time when the tender was made was excessive. The excessive payment can be adjusted in the arrears of rent. Accordingly, the eviction petition was dismissed.
3. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority held that the tender made by the petitioner was short and invalid. On the first date of hearing, the petitioner tendered Rs. 1,848/- as rent from 1.10.1990 to 31.7.1992 at the rate of Rs. 84/- per month, Rs. 130/- as interest and Rs. 50/- as, costs. It was short by Rs. 3/-. Accordingly, holding that the tender was short, order of eviction was passed against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, present revision petition has been preferred.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the tenant did not know the exact date of filing of the petition. He has to accept the date typed on the petition which was 24.7.1992. The interest payable comes to Rs. 102/- only. The petitioner had tendered Rs. 130/- as interest. The month of July had not been completed and, therefore, the amount tendered was in excessive.
5. It is well settled that in accordance with the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short “the Act”), rent for a particular month only becomes due on the last day of the next month. The language of Section 13 of the Act in this regard is clear and unambiguous. To the same effect is also the decision of this Court in the case of Sant Singh v. Messrs Finley and Company, (1967)69 P.L.R. 548. At this stage, reference can well also be made to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sukhwinder Singh v. Ashok Kumar, (1997-3)117 P.L.R. 114. This Court held that the provisions of Section 59 of the Contract Act are not attracted. If the amount tendered under a particular head is in short but is in excess under another head, adjustment can be claimed. The precise findings are as under:-
“The arrears of rent is a debt in common parlance, but payment of interest on rental arrears flows from tenant’s liability to pay rental arrears thus, they constitute only one debt and not two distinct debts. Therefore, provisions of Section 59 of the Contract Act are not attracted in such cases and further on the count that the payment of interest on rental arrears under Section 13(2)(i) proviso is not based on contractual liability, as it flows from the provisions of this statute. If the tenant tenders rental arrears, interest and costs with a direction for appropriation and if the amount deposited under a particular head falls short, while the amount deposited under another head is in excess, the tenant is entitled to claim adjustment of such excess amount towards such short deposit and on this count, he is not liable to ejectment.”
6. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, it is abundantly clear, as pointed above, that the eviction petition was shown to have been typed on 24.7.1992. The rent, thus, even of June, 1992 could not be due on the date shown in petition. In any case, therefore, the rent tendered was in excess. When it was in excess on account of the rent due, it can be easily adjusted if there was any mistake in calculating the interest. Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sukhwinder Singh’s case (supra) provides the answer in this regard. Thus, the learned Appellate Authority was patently in error that the tender, in fact, was short. The same cannot be sustained.
For these reasons, the revision petition is allowed and the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority is set aside. Instead, the eviction petition is dismissed.