Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1170 (PNJ)

Sanjeev Kumar v. Krishan Gopal Lamba

2012-09-10

JASWANT SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Jaswant Singh, J.: - Petitioners(tenants) Sanjeev Kumar and Des Raj have filed the present revision under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949(hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the concurrent findings returned by both the courts below, whereby the learned Rent Controller, Kharar allowed the ejectment petition filed by the respondent(landlord) on the ground of non payment of rent vide its order dated 21.01.2012 and the findings thereof have been affirmed by learned Appellate Authority, SAS Nagar, Mohali vide its judgment dated 06.08.2012. 2. In brief, facts of the case are that respondent(landlord) Krishan Gopal Lamba filed an application under Section 13 of the Act seeking eviction of the petitioners(tenant) from the demised premises on the ground of non payment of arrears of rent, subletting the shop, and also on the ground of premises being unfit and unsafe for human habitation. 3. Upon notice, the petitioners(tenant) filed their reply and thereafter the learned Rent Controller, Kharar passed order dated 07.09.2011 whereby the provisional rent at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month was assessed from 01.04.2007 to 30.04.2011 along with costs of Rs.300/- and interest at the rate of 6% per month. 4. However, the petitioners(tenants) did not comply with the said order and thereafter an application was moved by the respondents (landlords) for passing of the ejectment order due to non compliance of the order dated 7.9.2011. In the said application, it was stated that the provisional rent assessed by the Rent Controller was to be paid by 15.10.2011 and the total amount had come out to be Rs.55,180/-. As the said amount was not paid by the petitioners(tenants), therefore, their ejectment should be ordered. 5. On the said application, the learned Rent Controller passed impugned order of ejectment dated 21.01.2012 whereby it was held that the petitioners(tenants) had willfully and intentionally not complied with the order of the Rent Controller, Kharar and, therefore, their ejectment was ordered. 6. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners(tenants) had preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority, SAS Nagar, Mohali and vide impugned order dated 06.08.2012 the findings of the learned Rent Controller were affirmed. 7. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners(tenants) and have gone through the case file carefully with his able assistance. 8. 6. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners(tenants) had preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority, SAS Nagar, Mohali and vide impugned order dated 06.08.2012 the findings of the learned Rent Controller were affirmed. 7. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners(tenants) and have gone through the case file carefully with his able assistance. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that both the the courts below have failed to acknowledge the fact that though the present petitioners had disputed the rate of rent as alleged by the respondent(landlord), however, the petitioners had never refused to deposit the rent. It was also argued that the earlier counsel for the petitioners who represented them before the Rent Controller did not inform about passing of the order dated 7.9.2011 or the order dated 21.01.2012. Thus, it was prayed that one opportunity be granted to them so as to make good the payment of rent and consequently the petition be allowed. 9. After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioners(tenants), this Court is of the considered opinion that the present petition is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed outrightly. As per law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan Vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation 2002(1) Rent Control Reporter 515, it is obligatory for the Rent Controller to make provisional order assessing the arrears of rent, interest, costs of the proceedings and to call upon the tenant to tender the said amount on the first date of hearing i.e. the date to be fixed after provisional order. It is admitted that the Rent Controller had passed the order dated 7.9.2011, whereby the provisional rent was assessed at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month and called upon the petitioners(tenants) to tender the arrears of rent along with interest and costs w.e.f. 1.4.2007 to 30.04.2011 by 15.10.2011. However, on 15.10.2011 the petitioners(tenants) did not pay any rent and thereafter the case was adjourned to 16.11.2011. The present application was moved by the respondent(landlord) for passing of the eviction order on the ground of non compliance with the order of Rent Controller wherein the provisional rent was assessed. However, on 15.10.2011 the petitioners(tenants) did not pay any rent and thereafter the case was adjourned to 16.11.2011. The present application was moved by the respondent(landlord) for passing of the eviction order on the ground of non compliance with the order of Rent Controller wherein the provisional rent was assessed. In the opinion of this Court, both the courts have rightly passed the order of ejectment of the petitioners (tenants) as after the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan’s case(supra), it leaves no manner of doubt that the provisional rent and other ancillary charges assessed by the Rent Controller have to be deposited by the tenant on the next date of hearing as determined by him. The date of hearing has to be interpreted to mean, the first date of hearing after determination of provisional rent and other expenses as assessed by the Rent Controller. The position becomes further clear after careful perusal of para no.30 of the judgment in Rakesh Wadhawan’s case(supra) which holds that after determination of provisional rent, if a tenant fails to deposit the same, nothing remains to be done by the Rent controller and order of ejectment is the only necessary corollary. As is the admitted position in the present case, that the petitioners(tenants) did not comply with the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, this Court is in concurrence with the findings returned by both the courts below and the same are hereby affirmed. 10. As regards the second plea of engaging a new counsel and the previous counsel not informing the petitioners(tenants) regarding the passing of the order dated 7.9.2011 and 21.01.2012, this Court is of the opinion that such a plea cannot be accepted until and unless the petitioners(tenants) make out a strong case showing that they have defrauded. In the present case, there is no such evidence nor the said point has been substantiated in any manner so as to hold any finding in favour of the petitioners(tenants). 11. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed.