' Ejectment of the appellant was sought on the solitary ground of default in the payment of rent for the months of July, August and September, 1976. The ejectment petition was filed in October, 1976.
Learned Rent Controller vide order dated 4-12-1979 came to the conclusion that default in respect of rent for the month of July, 1976 had been committed and allowed the ejectment application. No finding was given as to the alleged default for the months of August and September 1976, perhaps due to the fact that rent for these two months could still be paid under the law on 27-10-1976 when the ejectment case was filed as the grace period of 60 days allowed by the law had not yet expired. The respondent came in appeal before this Court vide F.R.A. No,5/80 which was heard and decided on 22nd April 1984. The order of this Court dated 22nd April 1984 shows that there were doubts in the mind of the Court as to whether the default had, in fact, been committed and, "considering the fact that the default was only for the month of July, 1976 although the tenancy was in existence since 1969" this Court thought it fit to remand the case to the learned Rent Controller after permitting the present respondcnt(who was appellant in F.R.A. No,5/80) to place on record additional documehts in support of her contention that there was no default whatsoever even for the month of July 1976. After the remand of the case, the respondent/tenant again tendered her fresh affidavit-in-evidence and also tendered postal receipts Ex.6/K and Ex.6/L and A.D. Receipt Ex.6/M and statement of account Ex.6/N and a certificate dated 16-12-1979 from the Manager of the Bank Ex.6/0 and some other documents. The present appellant did not lead any evidence in rebuttal and after re-assessing the evidence on record learned Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment application vide impugned judgment dated 13-1-1987 after concluding that default for July 1976 had also not been proved and that, on the contrary, it was established that rent for this month had been tendered in time. The appellant/landlady has felt aggrieved from this judgment and come in appeal. Learned counsel of the parties have been heard and record perused.
2. According to the respondent/tenant, rent for the month of July, 1976 had been tendered, as per practice, through cheque which was sent by registered post acknowledgment due. During the evidence recorded prior to the remand of the case, the respondent was not in a position to place on record the postal receipt through which the registered letter containing the cheque in respect of the rent for the month of July 1976 had been sent. According to the respondent the receipt had been misplaced. She had, however, tendered in evidence the acknowledgment receipt Ex.5/H which showed that the registered letter had been received by the appellant/landlady on "9-9". The signatures of the appellant/landlady with the above-noted date are available on A.D. Receipt Ex.5/H. However, learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the date "9-9" under the signatures of the appellant/landlady were forged and that this registered letter must have been received by her after 4-10-1976 because the envelope Ex.5/C bears the post-mark of this date. The case of the respondent/tenant was that the envelope Ex.5/C was in respect of some repairs to the premises. During the hearing of F.R.A. No,5/80, the respondent was however, in a position to produce the postal receipt in respect of registered letter through which rent for the month of July, 1976 had been sent and this receipt was brought on record during the evidence recorded subsequent to the remand of the case. This postal receipt is Ex.6/K and the post-mark thereon bears the date of 8-9-1976. It is thus evident that respondent/tenant had sent a registered letter on 8-9-1976 Ex.6/K and this letter had been received by the appellant/landlady on 9-9-1976 as evidenced by A.D. Receipt Ex.5/H The cheque in question is on record as Ex.5/B and it is dated 8-9- 1976 and it bears the following endorsement:-- "Rs,500 only being house rent for the month of July, 1976."
' There is no reason to doubt that this cheque was sent through registered letter which was sent vide postal receipt Ex.6/K which was received by appellant/landlady vide A.D. Receipt Ex.5/H. Since rent of July 1976 was thus tendered on 8-9-1976 (whereas it could have been lawfully tendered upto 1st October 1976) there is no default in the payment of rent for the month of July, 1976. I agree with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Rent Controller in this regard.
3. Learned counsel of the appellant also claimed that tender of rent through cheque Ex.5/B was not a valid tender of rent for the reason that this cheque was not issued by the respondent/tenant but by her son whose signatures it bears. I do not find myself in agreement with this view. A cheque is a negotiable instrument and it is not necessary for the tenant to send a cheque under her own signatures and drawn on her own bank account. If her debtor gives her a cheque in payment of his bebt, she can legitimately tender the same in payment of the rent. Mr. Salman Shibli, the son, had never imposed himself as the tenant of the premises. The covering letter and the A.D. Receipt clearly show that the cheque was sent by respondent/tenant. It was, therefore, a valid tender, notwithstanding the fact that it was the tenant's son who had drawn this cheque under his signatures on his own bank account. Learned counsel for the appellant, in this respect, had placed reliance on the judgment reported as Khalifa Muhammad Ibrahim alias Khalifa Zariwala v. Mst.
Sherin Begum and others (1968 SCM R 941). In this reported judgment, the facts were that a person stranger to tenancy, in an attempt to impose himself as joint tenant had remitted rent in the joint name of himself and original tenant and it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that tender of rent, being by a stranger, was not a valid and legal tender. These facts are quite different from the present case where the son had never made any attempt to impose himself as a tenant or a joint tenant. The tender was only by respondent/tenant. It was pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent that this objection that the appellant was not bound to accept rent sent by a stranger was not taken in the ejectment petition and this objection being out of the pleading could not be raised at the stage of evidence and in support of this objection learned counsel relied on the judgment of Saiyed Ali Amir v. Messrs Dalmia Cement Limited PLD 1961 (W.P.) 255 and in the case of Mst. Bismillah Jan v. Riaz Mahmood (1987 M LD 438). I agree with the learned counsel for the respondent and uphold his objection. However, a decision on this point is only of an academic value since there is no force in the contention raised by the appellant in ground No,(d) of the memo of appeal that the appellant was not hound to accept the rent sent vide cheque Ex.5/B under registered cover vide postal receipt Ex.6/K and A.D. Receipt Ex.5/H.
4. I am, therefore, satisfied that the respondent had duly tendered the rent even for the month of July, 1976 well in time and there was no default in this regard. Even otherwise, if the contentions of the appellant/landlady were to be accepted that the rent of July 1976 was tendered to her on 4-10- 1976, even then there would be a default of only three days as the rent of July 1976 could have been lawfully tendered upto 1st October 1976 and in that case, the default being for such a short period during such a long tenancy subsisting since 1969, it would show that this alleged default of three days was not wilful. I would accordingly reject this appeal with the result that the ejectment application stands dismissed.
Appeal rejected.