Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1261 (PNJ)

Akash Sheet v. Naresh Bhutani

2013-09-18

RAKESH KUMAR GARG

body2013
Rakesh Garg, J. 1. This is tenants revision petition challenging the order dated 15.5.2012 of the Rent Controller, Faridabad, whereby they have been ordered to be ejected from the demised premises for non-tendering of provisional rent, as assessed in terms of order dated 4.5.2012 and further the judgment dated 27.8.2013 of the Appellate Authority, whereby their appeal against the aforesaid order of eviction was dismissed. In the instant petition, the respondent-landlord claimed eviction of the petitioners for non-payment of rent for the period w.e.f. November, 2010 upto December, 2011. The petitioner-herein contested the petition by denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and claiming further that they have purchased the demised premises vide an agreement to sell dated 27.12.2007 and a suit for specific performance of agreement is pending between the parties and therefore, he was not liable to pay any rent in these proceedings. 2. However, the Rent Controller vide order dated 4.5.2012, assessed the provisional rent @ ` 13,200/- per month and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of ` 1,96,000/- which is inclusive of rent, interest and costs on the date fixed i.e. 15.5.2012. 3. The tenant-petitioners admittedly failed to tender the provisionally assessed rent on the stipulated date i.e. 15.5.2012. Consequently, the Rent Controller following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Wadhavan & ors. v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, 2002(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 514: 2002(2) PLR 370 and the DB judgment of this Court in Rajan @ Raj Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar,: 2010(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 386 : 2012(2) PLR 201 ordered eviction of the petitioners from the demised premises on the ground of non-payment of provisional rent, as assessed. The petitioners filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority which was also dismissed. 4. The petitioners filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority which was also dismissed. 4. Challenging the aforesaid order, counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the impugned orders of eviction have been passed erroneously, ignoring the fact that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the petitioners were not liable to pay any rent, as they have become the owner of the suit property vide agreement to sell dated 27.12.2007 and a civil litigation i.e. suit for specific performance of agreement to sell is already pending between them and even vide order dated 28.3.2011, the Civil Court has directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to possession of the petitioners over the suit property and further alienation of the suit property. 5. The argument raised is liable to be rejected outrightly. It is well settled that an agreement to sell will not confer any title on a party, unless the same is enforced in law against the executant of such an agreement. Admittedly, the matter is pending before the Civil Court and that may go in favour or against the petitioners. Further, it may be noticed that admittedly, the petitioners are in possession of the suit property as tenants and till date, their status with regard to the said property is of tenants and thus, it cannot be said that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the petitioners were not obliged to tender the provisional rent, as assessed. 6. It may further be noticed that the petitioners have not challenged the order dated 4.5.2012 passed against them by the Rent Controller,. Faridabad, whereby provisional rent was assessed. In fact, legality of the aforesaid order has never been questioned by the petitioners by filing separate proceedings to challenge the same or even before the Rent Controller during the course of passing of the eviction order dated 15.5.2012 and before the Appellate Authority, which culminated into the judgment dated 27.8.2013, except on the ground that he was not liable to pay rent in view of the agreement to sell between the parties. 7. 7. Faced with this situation, counsel for the petitioners has submitted before this Court that the petitioners are still ready to pay the amount of rent as assessed by the Rent Controller and they are in possession of the demised premises on the basis of the order of Civil Court. 8. Be that as it may, this Court has nothing to do with the proceedings in the civil suit and the rights of the parties in the suit will be determined by the Civil Court. Suffice is to say that counsel for the respondent-landlord has refused to accept the offer of counsel for the petitioners to tender the provisionally assessed rent at this stage. 9. It is suffice to say that in view of DB judgment of this Court in Rajan @ Raj Kumar (supra), once a default is committed by a tenant, by not tendering the provisionally assessed rent on the stipulated date, nothing remains and eviction of the tenant is automatic. In view thereof, the submissions made to tender the rent at this stage is of no use. 10. In view of the aforesaid, this court find no merit in this petition. Dismissed.