Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1090 (PNJ)

Gian Chand v. Lachman Dass

2007-05-09

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2007
JUDGMENT Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - The tenant has filed this revision petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the Act) for setting aside the order dated 16.12.1992 passed by the appellate authority, whereby, he has been ordered to be ejected under Section 13(2)(i) of the Act from the demised premises on account of non-payment of rent. 2. In this case, the respondent-landlord filed an application under Section 13(2)(i) of the Act for ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of non- payment of rent. The respondent-landlord claimed the rent of the demised premises (shop) at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month and claimed non-payment of the said rent from August, 1986 till the date of filing of the petition i.e. 4.1.1988. The tenant contested the ejectment application on the ground that rate of rent of the demised premises was Rs. 200/- and not Rs. 400/-, as claimed by the landlord. On the first date of hearing the tenant tendered the rent at the rate of Rs. 200/- for the claimed period along with cost and interest as assessed. Ultimately after leading evidence by both the parties, the Rent Controller found that the rate of rent was at the rate of Rs. 200/- and the said rate has already been tendered by the tenant, therefore, the ejectment application was dismissed. 3. Feeling aggrieved against the said order, the landlord filed an appeal. The appellate authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that the rate of rent of the demises premises was Rs. 400/- and since the tenant had tendered the rent at the rate of Rs. 200/- only, the same was held to be invalid. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and an order of ejectment was passed against the tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent. Against the said order, the instant revision petition has been filed by the tenant. 4. 400/- and since the tenant had tendered the rent at the rate of Rs. 200/- only, the same was held to be invalid. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and an order of ejectment was passed against the tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent. Against the said order, the instant revision petition has been filed by the tenant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan and others v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and others, (2002-2)131 PLR 370 (SC) and in view of the said decision, the impugned order passed by the appellate authority is liable to be set aside and the case is to be remanded back to the Rent Controller for providing an opportunity to the tenant for making the payment or tender the rent as per the assessment made by the appellate authority. 5. Counsel for the respondent-landlord could not controvert the aforesaid factual, and legal position. 6. After hearing counsel for the parties and going through the impugned judgment and decree, I am of the opinion that the instant case is squarely covered by the decision of Rakesh Wadhawans case (supra). While interpreting Section 13(2)(i) of the Act, the Honble Supreme Court has held that the proviso to Section 13(2)(i) of the Act casts an obligation on the Rent Controller to make an assessment of (i) arrears of rent, (ii) the interest on such arrears, and (iii) the cost of application and then quantify by way of an interim or provisional order the amount which the tenant must pay or tender on the first date of hearing. If the tenant fails to comply with the said interim or provisional order, nothing remains to be done and an order for ejectment has to be passed. On the other hand, if the tenant complies with the interim or provisional order, the inquiry shall continue for final adjudication upon the dispute as to the arrears of rent in the light of the contending pleas raised by the landlord and the tenant before the Controller. If the final adjudication by the Controller be at variance with his interim or provisional order passed under the proviso, one of the following two orders may be made depending on the facts situation of a given case. If the final adjudication by the Controller be at variance with his interim or provisional order passed under the proviso, one of the following two orders may be made depending on the facts situation of a given case. If the amount deposited by the tenant is found to be in excess, the Controller may direct a refund. If, on the other hand, the amount deposited by the tenant is found to be short or deficient, the Controller may pass a conditional order directing tenant to place the landlord in possession of the premises by giving a reasonable time to the tenant for paying or tendering the deficit amount failing which alone he shall be liable to be evicted. 7. In the instant case, final determination of the rent was at the rate of Rs. 400/-. In that situation, a final opportunity is to be given to the tenant to tender the rent finally determined, which has not been given in this case. Therefore, the impugned order in my opinion is liable to be set aside and the tenant is to be provided one opportunity by the Rent Controller to make payment of the rent so determined by the appellate authority failing which alone he shall be liable to be evicted. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the appellate authority is set aside and the case is sent back to the Rent Controller, Nakodar, for providing one opportunity to the tenant for making payment of rent as per the final determination by the appellate authority and then to proceed in accordance with law. Disposed of in the above terms. Petition allowed.