Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 952 (PNJ)

Arun Jain v. Kulbir Kaur

2011-03-30

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

body2011
JUDGMENT RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. - The question involved in this revision petition is as to “whether the Rent Controller has the jurisdiction to extend time for tendering provisionally assessed rent on the application filed by the counsel for the tenant on the ground that he could not communicate the order of the Rent Controller to the tenant? 2. In brief, the landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short “the Act”] in order to seek eviction of the tenant from the first floor of house No.415, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh on the ground of non-payment of rent, personal necessity and nuisance. The landlord alleged that the tenant is in occupation of the demised premises w.e.f. 01.09.1995 on monthly rent of Rs.4,200/-with 5% increase every year besides payment of electricity and water charges. The tenant engaged Rajan Malhotra and Amit Rajan, Advocates, to contest the eviction petition, who filed written statement on his behalf, which was replied by way of replication and hence, the pleadings were over. On 29.11.2010, the learned Rent Controller assessed the provisional rent which was ordered to be paid on 24.12.2010. However, the provisionally assessed rent was not tendered on that date, rather an application was filed by the Advocates of the tenant under their own signatures for extension of time on the ground that “since the date of order on assessment of rent, the applicant/respondent could not be contacted despite various efforts, hence time may kindly be extended for making payment”. The learned Rent Controller has dismissed the application on the same day on the ground that he has no power to extend the time in view of the judgment of Supreme Court rendered in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan and others V. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and others, 2001(1) RCR 517 and passed the order of eviction, which was challenged by the tenant in appeal but that too was dismissed with an observation that sufficient time of 25 days was at the disposal of the tenant for tendering the provisionally assessed rent and the said period was also sufficient for the purpose of informing him. It was also observed that if the time is extended in such like manner, then there would be no sanctity to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan and others' case (supra). 3. It was also observed that if the time is extended in such like manner, then there would be no sanctity to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan and others' case (supra). 3. Aggrieved against the order dated 24.12.2010, the present revision petition has been filed in which learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was no fault of tenant in not tendering the rent on 24.12.2010 due to lack of communication, i.e. because of the negligence of the counsel for the tenant who did not inform him about the order dated 29.11.2010. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the available record with his able assistance. 5. In the case of Rakesh Wadhawan and others (supra), which has been further clarified by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajan alias Raj Kumar V. Rakesh Kumar, 2010(1) HLR 264, it has been held that in case of non-payment of provisional rent assessed by the Rent Controller, the eviction order would follow. However, the question whether the Rent Controller has the jurisdiction to extend the time or not was considered by this Court in CR No.7752 of 2010 titled as `Mrs. Birender Khullar V. Maninder Singh' decided on 04.03.2011 in which it has been held that if the fault is with the Rent Controller in not assesing the exact amount of provisional rent, then the litigant cannot be allowed to suffer and in that circumstance, the time can be extended by the Rent Controller. In that case, the learned Rent Controller had failed to give the exact amount of provisional rent, exact amount of interest payable and the precise amount which was to be tendered by the tenant, as a result of which, while tendering the rent on the date fixed, some deficiency occurred, but the Rent Controller ordered eviction on the ground that the entire amount of rent is not tendered. In those circumstances, a direction was also issued by this Court to all the Rent Controllers in the States of Punjab, Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh to henceforth assess the exact amount of rent due, exact amount of interest payable and indicate the exact amount of rent in rupees and paisa, which is to be tendered by the tenant so that he may not be misled about the actual calculation and face the order of eviction. Thus, it cannot be said that the time cannot be extended by the Rent Controller at all, but the question is whether it can be extended due to fault of the Advocate. 6. The facts of this case are that both the parties, namely, the landlord and tenant, are residents of Chandigarh as also their Advocates. In this era of information technology, when everyone is possessing mobile phones and Sector 35-A, Chandigarh, where the tenant is residing, is not far away from the District Courts, Chandigarh, where the Advocates of the tenant were practicing, it cannot be believed that the tenant could not have been contacted by his Advocates especially when nothing has been brought on record by the Advocates of the tenant in the shape of any prima facie evidence like call details of mobile phone if they had tried to contact him on mobile phone, receipt of courier if they had tried to contact the tenant through a letter sent through courier or receipt of Telegram Office if the tenant was informed through telegram. In the absence of any prima facie evidence, the plea taken by the Advocates of the tenant that they had tried to contact the tenant but he could not be informed, cannot be believed and is apparently a ploy on the part of the Advocates for obtaining extension in time for the purpose of tendering the provisionally assessed rent which was ultimately found to be Rs.5,55,000/-as it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that a draft of the said amount was even attached by the tenant with his appeal when he had challenged the order of eviction passed on the basis of non-tendering the provisionally assessed rent on the due date. 7. In these circumstances, I do not subscribe the reason given by the Advocates of the tenant and hold that it was only an eyewash for the purpose of getting an adjournment as it appears that the petitioner/tenant was not ready with money on the said date. 7. In these circumstances, I do not subscribe the reason given by the Advocates of the tenant and hold that it was only an eyewash for the purpose of getting an adjournment as it appears that the petitioner/tenant was not ready with money on the said date. Morevoer, learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that the petitioner/tenant has not taken any action against his Advocates Rajan Malhotra and Amit Rajan for not informing him about the date on which he had to tender the provisionally assessed rent nor he had filed any complaint either before the Bar Association of which they are members or before the Bar Association of Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh to which they have been enrolled. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present revision petition is found to be totally without any merit and as such, the same is hereby dismissed, though without any order as to costs. Petition Dismissed.