Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1453 (PNJ)

Amit Jain v. Jawantri @ Jagwati

2010-04-09

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2010
JUDGMENT Vinod K. Sharma, J. (Oral).:- This revision petition, by the petitioner-landlord, is directed against the judgment dated 25.3.2008, passed by the learned appellate authority, vide which the petition filed by the petitioner for eviction of the respondent-tenant, on ground of non-payment of rent, has been declined. 2. The petitioner-landlord sought eviction of the respondenttenant from the house consisting of one room, latrine/bathroom and kitchen being part of house No.263 at Raja Ram Colony, near Azad Nagar, Yamuna Nagar. 3. The pleaded case of the petitioner was, that vide registered sale deed dated 19.2.2001, the petitioner purchased the property from Mulakh Raj, Smt. Varsha Rani and Smt. Janki Rani. At that time, the respondent was tenant in the portion of the house consisting of one room, latrine/bathroom and kitchen. The case of the petitioner was, that the rate of rent of the premises was Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) per month plus house tax, and that the rent was payable in advance every month. The case further was, that the tenancy started from 19th day of every English calendar month and ended on 18th day of the next month. It was also the case of the petitioner, that in spite of the information having been given to the respondent-tenant about the purchase, she did not deposit the rent and house tax w.e.f. 19.3.2001 to 18.7.2002 i.e. for 16 months, amounting to Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand only) plus house tax @ 12.5% per month along with interest. 4. The petition was contested, wherein the tenant denied the purchase by the petitioner. It was the case of the respondent, that in order to avoid litigation, the respondent through her husband Satpal son of Sh. Mehar Chand, deposited the rent at the rate of Rs.200/- (Rupees two hundred only) per month for the period 1.3.2001 to 31.10.2002 along with interest. It was the case of the respondent-tenant that the earlier rate of rent was Rs.250/- (Rupees two hundred and fifty only) per month. Due to the dis-connection of the electricity and water supply by the landlord, the rate of rent was reduced by the respondent-tenant to Rs.200/- (Rupees two hundred only) per month. The case of the respondent-tenant was, that the rent of the premises already stood deposited under Section 6 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, in the Court of Sh. Atul Marya, Rent Controller, Jagadhri. 5. The case of the respondent-tenant was, that the rent of the premises already stood deposited under Section 6 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, in the Court of Sh. Atul Marya, Rent Controller, Jagadhri. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues: - “1. Whether respondent is liable to be ejected from the demised premises on the grounds mentioned in the petition? OPA 2. Whether petitioner is estopped from filing the present petition by his own act and conduct? OPD 3. Relief.” 6. Though, there was dispute regarding the rate of rent between the parties, the learned Rent Controller did not decide the provisional rent payable by fixing the date for payment but proceeded to decide the petition and by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kuldeep Singh Vs. Ganpat Lal and another, 1996(1) RCR (Rent) 348, held that as the rent was not tendered by the respondent-tenant, therefore, she was liable to be evicted from the property. 7. The learned appellate authority set aside the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, by observing that learned Rent Controller fell in error by not adhering to the procedure laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan Vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, 2002(1) Rent Control Reporter 514. 8. However, after referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, instead of remanding the case back to the learned Rent Controller for adjudication, learned appellate authority proceeded on the presumption, that the tenant had already deposited the rent and the petition was liable to be dismissed, as no rent was due. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the judgment passed by the learned appellate authority on the ground, that the learned appellate authority, failed to notice that the amount deposited by the tenant did not depict the amount due, as the rate of rent was Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) per month, whereas the deposit made was only at the rate of Rs.200/- (Rupees two hundred only) per month. 10. This contention is opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent asserts that the rate of rent was only Rs.200/- (Rupees two hundred only) per month, and the amount already stood deposited. 10. This contention is opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent asserts that the rate of rent was only Rs.200/- (Rupees two hundred only) per month, and the amount already stood deposited. No fault, therefore, could be found with the judgment passed by the learned appellate authority. 11. On consideration, I find force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Once, a specific plea was taken, that rate of rent was Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) per month, and this fact was disputed, it was incumbent upon the learned Rent Controller to have framed an issue with regard to the rate of rent. In addition, it was required of the learned Rent Controller, to have prima facie assessed the provisional rent payable by taking into consideration the pleadings and the documents on record. Thereafter, it was to give a date to the respondent-tenant to deposit the amount, if any due, on the said date. 12. In the event of payment of the provisional rent, the learned Rent Controller was required to determine the rate of rent. In case, the rent was held to be Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only), the learned Rent Controller was required to give another opportunity to the respondent-tenant to deposit the rent before ordering the eviction. 13. In view of the positive finding recorded by learned appellate authority that there was violation of the procedure as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan Vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation (supra) by the learned Rent Controller, the case should have been remanded back to the learned Rent Controller to decide the rent petition in accordance with law. 14. For the reasons mentioned above, this revision petition is allowed, the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller as well as the learned Appellate Authority are set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned Rent Controller to proceed in accordance with law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan Vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation (supra), and thereafter decide the case in accordance with law. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned Rent Controller on 17.5.2010. ----------------