Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1586 (PNJ)

Surjit Singh Grewal v. Vasudeo

2008-09-16

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2008
Judgment Vinod K.Sharma, J. 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 24.5.1988 passed by the learned Appellate Authority vide which appeal filed against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller was accepted. 2. The petitioner-landlord has sought eviction of the respondent-tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent. The petitioner claimed that rate of rent was Rs. 160/- per month and tenant was in arrears of rent since May, 1980. However, the petition was contested by the petitioner and it was claimed that rent was Rs. 80/- per month. It was also claimed that the rent already stood paid upto January 1981 and thereafter he sent a bank draft of Rs. 1440/- in July 1982 being rent for the period from February, 1981 onwards, which the petitioner has refused to accept. 3. The learned Rent Controller held that the tenant was in arrears of rent for the period from May, 1980 to July, 1980, which was not tendered on the first date of hearing, thus, ordered the eviction. 4. However, in appeal the learned Appellate Authority while affirming the findings on issues No. 1 to 3 and reversed the finding of the learned Rent Controller on issue No. 4. The learned Appellate Authority observed that rent from June, 1980 to December 1980 was not paid. However, held on available evidence that the rent was offered, but it was landlord who refused to accept the same and, therefore, permitted the landlord to recover the rent by availing his remedy in accordance with law. The finding of the learned Courts below cannot be sustained. 5. In view of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan & others v. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation & others, 2002(1) RCR(Rent) 514 : JT 2002 (Suppl-I) SC 11, it was incumbent upon the Rent Controller to have assessed the rent along with interest and costs payable by the tenant and thereafter to grant time to the tenant to deposit the said amount. 6. The eviction could only be ordered in case the rent was not paid by the date stipulated in the said order. The impugned orders passed by the learned Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority are set aside. 6. The eviction could only be ordered in case the rent was not paid by the date stipulated in the said order. The impugned orders passed by the learned Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority are set aside. The case is remanded back to the learned Rent Controller with a direction to assess the rent payable by the tenant and thereafter give opportunity him to make the payment as per the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. Prem Lata, 2003(2) RCR(Rent) 329 : AIR 2003 SC 3854 and Rakesh Wadhawan & others v. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation & others (supra). The Rent Controller is directed to issue notice to the parties for appearance.