Skip to content


NavIn Chandra Vs. Yogendra Nath Bhargava - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectContract
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 3441 of 1963
Judge
Reported inAIR1967All293
ActsContract Act, 1872 - Sections 50
AppellantNavIn Chandra
RespondentYogendra Nath Bhargava
Appellant AdvocateL. Chandra and ;Navin Chandra, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateS.S. Chandwaria, Adv.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
contract - validity of payment by cheque - section 50 of contract act, 1872 - valid if creditor accepts cheque or debtor is bound by contract to pay by cheque - in other cases creditor cannot be forced to accept payment by cheque if he desires to be paid in cash. - - he may establish this by proving that the creditor bad accepted payment by cheque on all previous occasions or that there was a custom sanctioning payment by cheque......there was no rent due on the date of demand. the courts held that payment by cheque was not a valid lender in this case. i think they were right.3. the question whether a lender of payment by cheque by the debtor is equivalent to payment is one of fact and must he decided according to the facts and circumstances of each case.4. if the creditor accepts the cheque, it will be a valid lender unless the cheque is subsequently dishonoured. if however the creditor refuses to accept the cheque and contends that there was no valid tender of payment, the debtor must establish that he was entitled to lender the payment by cheque. he may establish this by proving that the creditor bad accepted payment by cheque on all previous occasions or that there was a custom sanctioning payment by cheque......
Judgment:

S.S. Dhavan, J.

1. This is a tenant's second appeal from the concurrent decrees of the courts below ordering his ejectment from a house. The appellant Navin Chandra, who is a lawyer practising at Aligarh, is a tenant of the house of which Sri Yogendra Nath Bhargava is the owner and landlord The appellant sent two cheques on 3-7-1961 and 31-7-1961 respectively in full payment of the rent, but both were returned by the landlord who wrote that hewas not prepared to accept the payment by cheque and requested the appellant to pay the vent in cash. In reply to this letter the appellant wrote on 21-8-1961 that in future he would make payment by cheque or money order, at the option of the landlord, but if by money order he would deduct the postal charges. However he never sent the remittance by money order. The landlord served on him a notice of demand together with a conditional termination of the tenancy, but the amount remained unpaid. Thereupon the landlord filed this suit for his ejectment which was decreed by both the Courts below.

2. Mr. Navin Chandra argued only one point in support of this appeal. He contended that the Courts below erred in holding that the appellant's remittance by cheque before the receipt of notice of demand was not a valid tender of payment. It is common ground that if the appellant's remittance by cheque was a valid tender, there was no rent due on the date of demand. The Courts held that payment by cheque was not a valid lender in this case. I think they were right.

3. The question whether a lender of payment by cheque by the debtor is equivalent to payment is one of fact and must he decided according to the facts and circumstances of each case.

4. If the creditor accepts the cheque, it will be a valid lender unless the cheque is subsequently dishonoured. If however the creditor refuses to accept the cheque and contends that there was no valid tender of payment, the debtor must establish that he was entitled to lender the payment by cheque. He may establish this by proving that the creditor bad accepted payment by cheque on all previous occasions or that there was a custom sanctioning payment by cheque. For example, among business-men payment by cheque will ordinarily be treated as valid payment unless the cheque is dishonoured. But in the absence of circumstances permitting payment by cheque, a debtor cannot claim a legal right to make payment by cheque if the creditor insists on being paid in cash. In this case, the parties are not business-men, nor did the debt arise out of any business transaction. The tenant is a lawyer and the landlord was at the time a student studying at Allahabad. The landlord refused to accept payment by cheque. He was entitled to do so. Therefore, the appellant cannot claim that he had tendered the rent before receiving the notice of demand.

5. Another circumstance against the appellant is that he accepted the cheque backand promised to remit the rent by moneyorder, but never did. I have some sympathyfor him but he has brought all this upon himself..

6. The appeal is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //