Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 262 (PNJ)

Gautam Parkash v. Naresh Kumar

2003-02-12

N.K.SUD

body2003
Judgment N.K.Sud, J. 1. The respondent-landlord had sought eviction of the petitioner on the ground that he was in arrears of rent. The landlord was claiming rent at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month whereas the case of the tenant was that the agreed rate of rent was Rs. 20/- per month. The Rent Controller accepted the contention of the tenant that the agreed rate of rent was Rs. 20/- per month, and accordingly, held that he was not in arrears of rent. Consequently, the eviction application was dismissed. 2. The landlord filed an appeal before the lower Appellate Court which came to the concussion that the agreed rent was Rs. 150/- per month and since the tenant had paid rent at the rate of Rs. 20/- per month, he was in arrears of rent and was liable to be evicted on that ground. It is against the said order of the lower Appellate Court that the present revision petition is directed. 3. While issuing notice in this petition, the petitioner was directed to deposit rent at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month with the Rent Controller which the respondent-landlord could withdraw on furnishing suitable security to his satisfaction. Thus, the tenant is depositing rent at the rate of Rs. 150/ per month. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner gives up his challenge to the rate of rent as determined by the lower Appellate Court. He, however, states that the tenant could not be ordered to be evicted in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhwan v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and Ors., (2002-2)131 P.L.R. 370 (S.C.), wherein it has been held that the Rent Controller has to pass an interim order tentatively determining the amount due to the tenant and afford him an opportunity to deposit the same before he could be ordered to be evicted on the ground of non-payment of rent. 5. Mr. Markan does not dispute this position. He, however, states that the rent has not been paid up to date. Counsel for the petitioner stated that according to his information rent at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month has been paid up to date. He, however, states that in case there is any amount due, it shall be cleared within two months from today. 6. In view of the above, the revision petition is allowed. Counsel for the petitioner stated that according to his information rent at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month has been paid up to date. He, however, states that in case there is any amount due, it shall be cleared within two months from today. 6. In view of the above, the revision petition is allowed. The order of the lower Appellate Court ordering eviction of the petitioner is set aside, it is made clear that if the petitioner fails to deposit the entire amount of rent due up to date within two months as undertaken by counsel for the petitioner in this court, the order of eviction shall stand restored automatically. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.