Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2114 (PNJ)

Om Parkash v. Manju Rani

2008-12-15

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2008
Judgment Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. Eviction petition was filed against the tenant. When the appellate authority was deciding the appeal, a compromise was arrived at between the parties. Compromise was recorded by the appellate authority on 7th February, 2001. It was agreed between the parties that the rent will be Rs. 1800/- per month and for the period from 3rd September, 1990 to 4th May, 2001, the amount comes to Rs. 2,30,400/-. In view of this compromise, appeal was disposed off by the appellate authority. Operative part of the judgment of appellate authority reads as under : "The suit for arrears of rent now pending in courts at Narwana shall be withdrawn by the respondent-landlady after the payment of Rs. 2,30,400/-. The rent of the shop in dispute after 4.5.2001 shall remain Rs. 1800/- per month inclusive of all taxes. In case tenant does not pay the monthly rent in time, he will hand over vacant possession to the respondent. The respondent shall issue stamped receipts for payment of rent as and when rent will be paid." 2. It is not disputed that amount of Rs. 2,30,400/-, which was due upto 4th May, 2001, has been paid. Counsel has further stated that thereafter, the amount of rent at the rate of Rs. 1800/- per month for the months of May, June, July and August has also been paid on 25th July, 2001, in the Court. Execution petition has been filed in December saying that the rent for the months of May, June, July, August, September, October, November and December was not paid. 3. Stand of the tenant was that he has been ready and willing to pay the amount but as per the orders of the appellate authority and the compromise, landlady was not accepting the same and was not issuing the receipts. The order of the appellate authority that in case rent is not paid in time, the tenant shall be liable for eviction, per se run counter to the provisions of Haryana Urban Rent Restriction Act. 4. Once, the amount of Rs. 2,30,400/- was paid in lumpsum, upto the month of April 2001 and thereafter, rent for the months of May, June, July and August was paid in Court, there was no reason that rent of Rs. 1800/- per month would not have been paid by the tenant for subsequent months. 4. Once, the amount of Rs. 2,30,400/- was paid in lumpsum, upto the month of April 2001 and thereafter, rent for the months of May, June, July and August was paid in Court, there was no reason that rent of Rs. 1800/- per month would not have been paid by the tenant for subsequent months. Refusal on the part of the landlady gives a handle to the landlady and tenant will be always at her mercy. Once, earlier eviction petition was decided and the amount of Rs. 2,30,400/- was deposited, in case of default in payment of rent later, a subsequent eviction petition has to be filed by the landlord for non-payment of the arrears. Order of the appellate authority shall not continue in perpetuity. Therefore, the execution petition is not maintainable. Objections as filed by the tenant are sustained. Impugned order (Annexure P-4) is set aside. 5. Hence, the present revision petition is disposed off in view of observations made above.