Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1353 (PNJ)

Khushi Ram v. Paramjit Singh

2012-10-01

JASWANT SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Jaswant Singh, J.: - Petitioner(tenant) is in 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 eviction petition filed by Kailash Kaur(since deceased and being represented by the respondents herein) was allowed vide order dated 07.11.2011 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana and the findings thereof have been affirmed by learned Appellate Authority, Ludhiana vide its judgment dated 22.08.2012. Consequently, the petitioner (tenant) was ordered to be evicted from the shop measuring 10’x11' which forms a part of unit no.XV-595. 2. In brief, facts of the case are that Kailash Kaur the original landlady now being represented by her Lrs, had filed eviction petition against the petitioner(tenant) from the demised premises on the ground that petitioner-Khushi Ram has been occupying the premises in question as a tenant at the rate of Rs.100/- per month, however, he has not tendered the rent from 1.1.2004 onwards. 3. Upon notice, the petitioner(tenant) filed reply whereby the tenancy was admitted. However, it was averred that he has paid the rent upto 31.12.2003 and is ready to pay the rent excluding the rent which he has already paid to the petitioner. 4. Thereafter the learned Rent Controller, vide its order dated 25.10.2011 had assessed the provisional rent and tenant was directed to tender the arrears of rent amounting to Rs.9100/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per month on the arrears of rent and Rs.500/- as costs and the case was adjourned to 07.11.2011 for tendering the above mentioned rent. However, on the said date, petitioner(tenant) did not come present and, therefore, the learned Rent Controller, by applying the principles of Rakesh Wadhawan Vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation 2002(1) Rent Control Reporter 514 had passed the ejectment order for non compliance of the order dated 25.10.2011. 5. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner(tenant) filed an appeal and the findings of the learned Rent Controller were affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority and the objections which were taken by the petitioner(tenant) including wrong date having been noted by his counsel were rejected and the eviction order was confirmed. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner(tenant) and have perused the paper book carefully with his able assistance. 7. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner(tenant) and have perused the paper book carefully with his able assistance. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner(tenant) has vehemently argued that the learned Courts below have failed to appreciate the cardinal principle of law that no one should be condemned unheard and the mistake which has been committed by the counsel for the petitioner before the Rent Controller. It was argued that it was on account of incorrect noting of date as disclosed by him, that the petitioner(tenant) could not make the requisite tender on 07.11.2011, as the official attached to the court of the Rent Controller had informed him about the next date of hearing as 09.11.2011. Secondly, the assessment which has been made by the Rent Controller was itself incorrect. Thirdly, that the petitioner(tenant) was confined to bed on account of having received injury on his person and for which he was medically treated, therefore, he could not appear before the Rent Controller for the tendering of rent. 8. After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner(tenant) and perusing the paper book with his able assistance, this Court finds that the present petition is devoid of any merit and the same deserves to be dismissed. The grounds that have been taken by the counsel for the petitioner before this court do not appeal to the conscious of this Court as ground nos.1 & 3 are completely contradictory to each other. It is stated in the application as well as in the argument that wrong date was noted, however, it has also been pleaded by the petitioner(tenant) that since he was confined to bed, therefore, he could not make the valid tender. This argument is itself contradictory to the plea of noting of wrong date. Rather, the perusal of the paper book reveals that X-Ray and the report that was placed on record by the petitioner(tenant) was regarding an old fracture which has already healed was detected. Further, there is nothing on record to prove that the official had told a wrong date to the petitioner and, therefore, relying upon the same, the petitioner was present on 09.11.2010. Further, there is nothing on record to prove that the official had told a wrong date to the petitioner and, therefore, relying upon the same, the petitioner was present on 09.11.2010. This Court finds that the argument regarding wrong assessment of rent having been made by the Rent Controller is also of no value because even if the assessment was made wrong, he was required under law to tender the rent under protest and after leading of evidence if he was found entitled to rent the learned Rent Controller had the power to remit the same to him. Thus all the three arguments that have been raised before me are devoid of merit and rather are on the brink of being frivolous in nature and thus the same are hereby rejected. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed.