Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1463 (PNJ)

Charanjit Singh v. Allied Properties

2013-11-07

RAKESH KUMAR GARG

body2013
Rakesh Garg, J. 1. This is tenant's revision petition against the order dated 7.5.2013 of the Appellate Authority whereby during the pendency of appeal against the order of eviction dated 16.4.2013, the prayer for stay of dispossession has been declined. The eviction petition was allowed vide order dated 16.4.2013 by observing as under:- Keeping in view the findings on the issues above; the petition stands allowed and the respondent is ordered to be evicted from the demised premises forthwith and is directed to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to petitioner forthwith. Failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to get the possession as per law. Memo of costs be prepared. File be consigned to record room. 2. Petitioner has filed an appeal against the aforesaid order which is pending before the Appellate Authority. During the pendency of the appeal, appellant has prayed for staying his dispossession from the demised premises which has been declined by the Appellate Authority which reads thus:- After having heard both the sides at length, I have come to a conclusion that the learned Trial Court has observed that the landlord-respondent firm has been able to prove that it is the landlord-owner of demised premises on the basis of registered sale deed dated 28.01.2008 (Ex. P3). The status of respondent (present appellant) as a tenant also stands proved from the registered lease deed dated 14.06.2004 (Ex. P5) and on the ground of non-payment of rent, ejectment order was passed. Therefore, the appellant-applicant is not entitled to relief claimed in application, by which he has prayed that operation of order dated 16.04.2013 be stayed during the pendency of the appeal. Hence, the present application stands dismissed. Now to come up on 08.07.2013 for arguments on main appeal. Trial Court record be also requisitioned for date fixed. 3. The aforesaid order is under challenge before this Court. After noticing the facts, this Court passed the following order on 25.10.2013:- This is tenant's revision petition against the order dated 7.5.2013 of the Appellate Authority whereby during the pendency of his appeal against the order of eviction dated 16.4.2013, the prayer for stay of dispossession has been declined. 3. The aforesaid order is under challenge before this Court. After noticing the facts, this Court passed the following order on 25.10.2013:- This is tenant's revision petition against the order dated 7.5.2013 of the Appellate Authority whereby during the pendency of his appeal against the order of eviction dated 16.4.2013, the prayer for stay of dispossession has been declined. At this stage, it may be noticed that while passing the eviction order on 16.4.2013, the Rent Controller has found that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties stands proved and since the petitioner has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, he is not entitled to any opportunity to tender the rent and therefore, his eviction was ordered. It may further be noticed that in the petition, the landlord has claimed rent w.e.f. 1.6.2004 @ ` 5,000/- per month. Counsel for the respondent has submitted before this Court that no interference is warranted in the impugned order as the petitioner has been found to be in arrears of rent @ ` 5,000/- per month w.e.f. 1.6.2004. Moreover, after the date of eviction i.e. 16.4.2013, he is liable to pay mesne profits at the market rate of rent for the use and occupation of the demised premises. Faced with this situation, counsel for the petitioner seeks short adjournment to get instructions. List on 7.11.2013. To be shown in the urgent list. Interim order shall continue till the next date of hearing. 4. At the outset, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has instructions to state that the petitioner is ready to deposit only the mesne profits from the date of eviction and are not ready to pay/deposit rent as assessed by the Rent Controller. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that statutory appeal filed by the petitioner is pending in which arguable powers have been raised and therefore judicial approach requires that when the appeal has been admitted and during the pendency of appeal the operation of the impugned order having serious civil consequences must be suspended. But this aspect of the case has been totally ignored by learned Appellate Authority which has caused miscarriage of justice in the present case. 6. In support of the argument, judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mool Chand Yadav and another v. Raza Buland Sugar Co. But this aspect of the case has been totally ignored by learned Appellate Authority which has caused miscarriage of justice in the present case. 6. In support of the argument, judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mool Chand Yadav and another v. Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. Rampur, : 1983 (1) All India Land LR 455 has been cited and further argued that since the appeal is pending, they are entitled to stay for their dispossession from the demised premises. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was on different facts and circumstances in a case arising out of contempt proceedings and is not applicable in the instant case. 8. Findings have been recorded by the Courts below with regard to the fact that the petitioner is tenant in the demised premises and is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.6.2004. Petitioner is seeking stay of his dispossession during the pendency of his appeal before the Appellate Authority but without putting himself to the terms. Counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the settled proposition of law that for grant of interim relief which is an equitable and discretionary relief a litigant can be put to terms, but in the instant case, the petitioner does not want to comply with the conditions to be imposed upon him thus, he cannot claim discretionary relief of this Court in exercising of its revisional jurisdiction against an order in which there is no infirmity. Dismissed.