Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1042 (PNJ)

Ravi Ahuja v. Ram Leela Committee

2004-09-14

M.M.KUMAR

body2004
Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. This is tenants petition filed under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrict Act, 1949 challenging concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below that the tenant-petitioner has been in arrears of rent. The execution of the Rent Note Ex.A-1 has been proved on record which stipulates that the tenant-petitioner had agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month. The Courts below have placed reliance on the statement made by Mangal Sain, Deed Writer, AW1, who scribed the Rent Note and Ram Dhan Vashisht, AW2. The tenant-petitioner has also admitted his signatures on the Rent Note. The plea taken by the tenant-petitioner with regard to concealment of facts concerning receipt of rent and security amount has been rejected and it has been found by both the Courts below that he is in arrears of rent. The following excerpts from the judgment of the Appellate Authority would establish the above mentioned factual position beyond any doubt and the same reads as under:- "The plea of the appellant is that respondent has concealed the fact regarding receipt of Rs. 1,000/- as rent and Rs. 5.000/- as security amount. Thus, the petition is not maintainable. But, from the perusal of Rent Note Ex.A-1, it is clear that Rs. 5,000/- - were received by respondent as security which is not required to be mentioned at the time of filing of petition as it was to be adjusted against the future rent, if any, in case of failure of appellant to pay rent or electricity charges etc. The respondent had admitted the receipt of rent of Rs. 1,000/- vide Ex. R-2. The bare perusal of same depicts that it relates to some other period and there is cutting regarding the date of period of rent. The appellant has taken the shop on rent with effect from 1.8.1998. The petition was filed on 1.3.1999. The period from 1.8.1998 to 28.2.1999 comes to seven months. The appellant has paid Rs. 1,000/- vide receipt Ex. R2 and Rs. 5,000/- vide receipt Ex.R-1. The total amount comes to Rs. 6,000/-. But, he was required to pay Rs. 7,000/- till 28.2.1999. When, he appeared in the Court in pursuance of notice received by him, he did not tender any rent. In this respect, his statement was recorded on 3.6.1999. Thus, the appellant was clearly in arrears of rent. 5,000/- vide receipt Ex.R-1. The total amount comes to Rs. 6,000/-. But, he was required to pay Rs. 7,000/- till 28.2.1999. When, he appeared in the Court in pursuance of notice received by him, he did not tender any rent. In this respect, his statement was recorded on 3.6.1999. Thus, the appellant was clearly in arrears of rent. When the appellant has failed to pay the rent to the respondent, he is liable to be ejected from the shop in question. Thus, findings of learned trial Court on all the issues are correct and the same are affirmed." 2. When the petition came up for consideration before this Court on 8.7.2004, learned counsel for the respondent made a very fair offer that the petitioner may deposit and the arrears of rent at the rate determined by the Courts below and keep on paying the same by the 10th of every month. He further stated that in the eventuality of payment of arrears of rent and undertaking that the tenant-petitioner would keep on paying the rent by the 10th of every month, his petition might be allowed by setting aside his ejectment from the demised premises. He had further submitted that the tenant-petitioner would be continued and accepted as a tenant in the demised premises. The offer made by the landlord-respondent was not accepted and an argument was raised by the tenant-petitioner that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, (2002-2)131 P.L.R. 370 (S.C.) : 2002(5) S.C.C. 440, the order of ejectment deserved to be quashed as no opportunity for depositing the arrears of rent was offered to the petitioner. However, this Court on 2.8.2004 called upon the petitioner to pay the arrears of rent at the rate determined by the Courts below. The arrears were required to be paid by 7.9.2004 and the opportunity to deposit the arrears was granted in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawans case (supra). The aforementioned order reads as under:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the offer made by the landlord-respondent on 8.7.2004 is not acceptable to the tenant-petitioner. Both the Courts below have found the rate of rent to be Rs. 1,000/- per month. The finding is based on Rent Note Ex.A1. The aforementioned order reads as under:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the offer made by the landlord-respondent on 8.7.2004 is not acceptable to the tenant-petitioner. Both the Courts below have found the rate of rent to be Rs. 1,000/- per month. The finding is based on Rent Note Ex.A1. In view of the law laid down in Rakesh Wadhawan v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, (2002-2)131 P.L.R. 370 (S.C.) : 2002(5) S.C.C. 440, the tenant is directed to deposit the arrears of rent at the aforementioned rate on or before 7.9.2004. The total arrears till 31.7.2004 comes to Rs. 66,000/- plus interest at the rate of 6 per cent along with costs of Rs. 2,000/-. Let the aforementioned amount be deposited by 7.9.2004. This order is to be considered as provisional order for depositing the arrears of rent. List again on 14.9.2004." 3. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner states at the bar that the tenant-petitioner has failed to pay the arrears of rent in terms of Order dated 2.8.2004. Following the view taken by the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawans case (supra) there has to be only one conclusion, that is, the tenant-petitioner, who is in arrears of rent, has remained unable to pay the rent determined by the Courts below despite the opportunity granted by this Court. In view of the above, findings recorded by the Courts below with regard to arrears of rent are affirmed, especially when the opportunity in terms of the law laid down in Rakesh Wadhawans case (supra) has been granted by this Court and also an offer was made by the landlord-respondent to accept the tenant-petitioner as tenant if he keeps paying the rent. Therefore, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.