Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 576 (PNJ)

Sunil Kumar v. Santosh Devi

2005-05-10

M.M.KUMAR

body2005
Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. This is tenants petition filed under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for brevity, `the Act) challenging concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below holding that the tenant-petitioners have failed to pay the electricity charges which resulted into disconnection of supply of electricity and the tender of rent made without payment of electricity charges was not a valid tender. The evidence of the rate of rent in the form of house tax assessment register produced by the tenant-petitioners have not been accepted as a valid basis for assessing the rate of rent. The landlady-respondent has claimed rent at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- p.m. After scanning and analysing the entire evidence, the Appellate Authority has concluded that the rate of rent was Rs. 2,000/- p.m. by observing as under :- ".... In this view of the matter, it is safe to conclude that in the light of Income-tax returns as furnished by Hari Chand Goel since deceased in the years 1996-97 and 1997-98 depicting rental income from the demised shop at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month find due corroboration from the entries made in the house tax assessment register regarding the annual value and thus the said entries are certainly relevant to show at what amount the annual value of the shop was assessed. Consequently, it can be conveniently held that at the relevant time, i.e. w.e.f. June, 1998 to October, 2001 shop in question was let out in favour of respondents at the monthly rentals of Rs. 2,000/-. At this juncture, it is relevant to point out here that since electricity consumption charges of the shop in question were not deposited by the respondents, said electricity connection bearing account No. HH-21/219 on account of non-deposit of arrears of Rs. 17,999/- was permanently disconnected on 6.10.2001 vide PDCO No. 93/2597 dated 6.10.2001 and the said fact is evident from the testimony of PW-2 R.S. Yadav, L.D.C. D.H.V.P.N.L., Faridabad. However, lateron vide receipt dated 11.9.2002 Ex. RW2/1 arrears of electricity consumption charges amounting to Rs. 17,999/- were deposited and the said fact finds support from the testimony of RW-2 Janesh Juneja, L.D.C., H.V.P.N.L. Since vide miscellaneous order dated 1.2.2002 respondents have made short tender of rent i.e. @ Rs. However, lateron vide receipt dated 11.9.2002 Ex. RW2/1 arrears of electricity consumption charges amounting to Rs. 17,999/- were deposited and the said fact finds support from the testimony of RW-2 Janesh Juneja, L.D.C., H.V.P.N.L. Since vide miscellaneous order dated 1.2.2002 respondents have made short tender of rent i.e. @ Rs. 300/- per month and for the said reason alone Rent Controller vide judgment dated 30.11.2004 while determining the monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- has passed a conditional order directing the respondents to place the landlady in possession of the shop in question by giving one months time to the respondents for paying or tendering the deficient amount failing which they alone shall be liable to be evicted." 2. On the question, whether the Rent Controller had passed any provisional order of assessment by virtue of proviso to Section 13(2)(1) of the Act, the Appellate Authority held that the tenant-petitioners were given adequate time to deposit the rent on the basis of assessment of the rent at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- p.m. The Rent Controller furnished an opportunity to the tenant- petitioners on 30.1.2004 by passing a conditional order that the tenant- petitioners were to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- and the deficient amount was also required to be paid failing which they were required to surrender possession of the demised shop to the landlady-respondent. The aforementioned approach of the Rent Controller has been considered as sufficient compliance of Section 13(2)(1) of the Act as is evident from the following para :- "Regarding aspect of controversy as to whether the Rent Controller has not passed any interim or provisional order under the proviso to Section 13(2)(1) of the Act while assessing the arrears of rent, interest on which arrears and cost of petition, however, a perusal of impugned judgment clearly reveals that the Rent Controller has rightly returned a finding that the monthly rent is Rs. 2,000/-. In that circumstance, the Rent Controller was required to pass a conditional order directing the tenants to place the landlady in possession of the premises by giving a reasonable time to the tenants for paying or tendering the deficient amount failing which they alone shall be liable to be evicted. 2,000/-. In that circumstance, the Rent Controller was required to pass a conditional order directing the tenants to place the landlady in possession of the premises by giving a reasonable time to the tenants for paying or tendering the deficient amount failing which they alone shall be liable to be evicted. In the instant case abovesaid approach was adopted by the Rent Controller and despite providing reasonable time of one month, respondents/tenants have failed to pay or tender the deficient amount. It is pertinent to mention here that after institution of instant appeal requisite period was provided to the appellants to make payment of the deficient amount but they have failed to do the needful. In this view of the matter, order of ejectment passed by Rent Controller is to be upheld and to that effect reliance can be placed on rulings Raman Kumar v. Surjeet Singh, 2004(1) RCR(Rent) 483 (P&H) and Nirmal Singh v. Mohammed Bashir, 2004(2) RCR(Rent) 297 (P&H)." 3. Mr. Kul Bhushan Sharma, learned counsel for the tenant-petitioners has made only one submission before me by urging that onus to prove the payment by law is always on the tenant. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Karpoori Thakur v. Dewan Chand, 2002(2) Rent Control Reporter 623. 4. After hearing the learned counsel and perusing the impugned judgments, I am of the considered view that no room is left for interference in the impugned orders of ejectment passed against the tenant-petitioners. It has been concurrently found that a provisional order of assessment determining the rate of rent of Rs. 2,000/- was passed on 30.1.2004 by the Rent Controller calling upon the tenant-petitioners to make up the deficiency, failing which the landlady-respondent was to be given possession of the demised shop. It has also come on record that the tenant-petitioners did not comply with the provisional order of assessment by depositing the deficient amount and connection of electricity was permanently disconnected on 6.10.2001 when he did not deposit the electricity bills. The bills were paid only on 11.9.2002 during the pendency of ejectment petition which was filed on 9.11.2001. The landlady-respondent has proved on record that her deceased husband had always depicted the rental income from the demised shop at the rate of Rs. 2,000/-. The bills were paid only on 11.9.2002 during the pendency of ejectment petition which was filed on 9.11.2001. The landlady-respondent has proved on record that her deceased husband had always depicted the rental income from the demised shop at the rate of Rs. 2,000/-. She also proved on record the entries made in the assessment register showing the annual value and for that purpose alone the entries made in the assessment register of house tax have been considered by the Courts below. Therefore, there is no legal infirmity in the findings recorded by both the Courts below as the rate of rent of Rs. 2,000/- has been duly proved and it has also been proved that the tender made was deficient. The aforementioned deficiency could not be made up by the tenant-petitioners despite opportunity granted by order dated 30.1.2004. Order dated 30.1.2004 adequately meets the legal requirement as envisaged by the Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. Prem Lata, 2003(2) RCR(Rent) 329 (SC) : 2003(11) SCC 397 which has reiterated the view taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan v. Jagdamba Industrial Corpn., 2002(1) RCR (Rent) 514 (SC) : 2002(5) SCC 440. Therefore, there is no legal infirmity in the findings recorded by the Courts below. 5. The argument raised by learned counsel for the tenant-petitioners on the basis of the judgment of this Court in Karpoori Thakurs case (supra) would not survive for consideration because the aforementioned judgment is not attracted to the facts of the present case. The landlady-respondent has discharged onus to prove the rate of rent and it cannot be concluded that entries in the house tax assessment register have been relied upon for the aforementioned purpose. Reliance has been placed on the income-tax returns showing the receipt of rent and paying tax on the rental income pertaining to the year 1996-97 and 1997-98. Those income tax returns find ample corroboration from the entries made in the house tax assessment register with regard to annual value as against the rate of rent. Therefore, there is no substance in the aforementioned submission made by the learned counsel. 6. For the reasons stated above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.