Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1425 (PNJ)

State Bank of India v. Ved Parkash

2014-10-14

BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON

body2014
Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J. 1. Tenant State Bank of India, petitioner herein, had faced petition for its eviction from the premises in dispute on the ground of non-payment of rent @ Rs. 8,000/- per month since 18.4.1999. Finding fault with the stand of the landlord and holding the petition of eviction to be devoid of any merit, the same was dismissed on 8.8.2007 by the Rent Controller, Nabha. Appeal preferred by the landlord was adjudicated by the Appellate Authority, Patiala under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter mentioned as the "Rent Act") on 4.8.2009 wherein reversing the impugned orders of the Rent Controller, accepting the petition of the landlord, finding it to be a case of short tender by the tenant making a detailed order of assessment of arrears of rent with interest etc. the tenant-bank had been called upon to make up deficiency in the short tender. Relevant operative portion of the order of the Appellate Authority is as below: "Accordingly, in my view since the respondent bank did not make the tender in court at the rate of Rs. 4000/- per month for the first two years and at the rate of Rs. 4600/- per month i.e. with 15% increase for the next five years, as such the tender made by respondent to petitioner/appellate is short. But due to this short tender made by the respondent, no ejectment order can be passed straightway. In view of Rakesh Wadhawan's case even if the tender is short, sufficient time is to be granted to the respondent to pay the arrears of rent to the petitioner/appellant. Accordingly, the appeal filed by petitioner/appellant is partly allowed and the judgment/order dated 8.8.2007 passed by learned Rent Controller is set aside and the respondent bank is directed to make good the arrears of rent which have been paid less to the petitioner/appellant within two months from today. The arrears which are to be paid by the respondent to the petitioner/appellant are as under: 1) Rs. 9000/- which has been paid less by the respondent to the petitioner/appellant for the first six months; 2) The difference of arrears of rent at the enhanced rate to the tune of Rs. 4600/- per month w.e.f. 15.4.2001 to 14.4.2006; 3) The difference of arrears of rent at the enhanced rate to the tune of Rs. 5290/- per month w.e.f. 15.4.2006 till date. 4600/- per month w.e.f. 15.4.2001 to 14.4.2006; 3) The difference of arrears of rent at the enhanced rate to the tune of Rs. 5290/- per month w.e.f. 15.4.2006 till date. The respondent bank is also liable to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the above said arrears of rent. In case the respondent bank failed to pay this amount, then the ejectment order will follow. Memo of costs be prepared." Rather than complying with the order of the Appellate Authority, the tenant-bank instead made an application under Section 31 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934 (hereinafter mentioned as the Indebtedness Act). The Rent Controller noticed that the tenant-bank had not tendered the rent in terms of the order of the Appellate Authority and thus tender of arrears of rent before the Rent Controller had continued to be the short. Dismissing the said application of the tenant-bank on 9.10.2010, it was held that the tenant-bank was at fault in making compliance with the orders of the Appellate Authority. Relevant portion of the impugned order (Annexure P-4) for ready reference is reproduced as below: "Instead, from the act and conduct of the Bank it seems that the bank is cheating the decree holder and misleading the court by taking the false and frivolous pleas and moving the unwarranted application under any provision of law. Hence there is nothing to grant any such opportunity to make up the deficiency of short tender and to stay the execution proceedings. Further the application is not maintainable which is not in compliance of above referred observations/directions of learned Appellate Authority. Hence the application under reference is hereby dismissed with specific observation that such act and conduct is not expected from such a responsible bank and that too for his landlord." 2. Stand of the tenant-bank in this revision petition is that the bank had never put the payment of deficiency in arrears on hold and has rather been always ready and willing to comply with the order of the Appellate Authority. Stand of the tenant-bank in this revision petition is that the bank had never put the payment of deficiency in arrears on hold and has rather been always ready and willing to comply with the order of the Appellate Authority. However, it has been claimed that the Appellate Authority did not comply with the law laid down in Rakesh Wadhawan v. M/s. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and others, 2003 (2) Civil Court Cases 361 (S.C.) whereby it is the duty of the Rent Controller to make assessment of the arrears of rent and then to afford an opportunity to the tenant to make such deposit and only on failure of tenant to comply with such order, eviction can follow. 3. Counsel for the landlord, on the other hand, has urged that the impugned order of the Appellate Authority is in complete compliance with law laid down in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra) and deficiency in tender of arrears of rent was to be made good but the tenant-bank had been taking one plea or the other merely to delay and dilate the matter and thus, invited the impugned eviction order by its willing default. 4. When questioned, counsel for the petitioner could not point out any mistake in the order of the Appellate Authority whereby complying with the provisions of Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra), order of assessment of arrears of rent was made and finding the tender of arrears of rent to be short, opportunity was to be given to the tenant-bank to make good the deficiency in the tender. 5. The tenant-bank continued to play hide and seek with the landlord and instead of complying with the order dated 4.8.2009 of the Appellate Authority took recourse to the provisions of the Indebtedness Act and made an application before the Rent Controller thereunder. In Atma Ram v. Shakuntala Rani, 2005 (2) Local Acts Reporter 439 (Supreme Court) this aspect has been discussed in detail and it was held that the tenant is required to deposit rent before the Rent Controller under the Rent Act but if instead, the tenant deposits rent under the provisions of the Indebtedness Act, it is not a valid tender and the tenant becomes liable to eviction. In para 19 of this judgment, it was held as under: "It will thus appear that this Court has consistently taken the view that in Rent Control Legislations if the tenant wishes to take advantage of the beneficial provisions of the Act, he must strictly comply with the requirements of the Act. If any condition precedent is to be fulfilled before the benefit can be claimed, he must strictly comply with that condition. If he fails to do so he cannot take advantage of the benefit conferred by such a provision." 6. To the same effect are Mehnga Singh and others v. Dewan Dilbagh Rai and others, (1971) 73 P.L.R. 57 (P & H) and Sheo Narain v. Shrimati Megh Mala Jain, (1977) 79 P.L.R. 157 (P & H). 7. In Civil Revision No. 756 of 2010 decided on 4.4.2011 titled Sanjeet Singh v. Mohali Motor Finance Company and another, (2011-3) 163 P.L.R. 15, it was specifically held by this Court that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to extend period of time for the purpose of tendering of rent. To the same effect are Mrs. Birinder Khullar v. Maninder Singh, (2011-3) 163 P.L.R. 38 and Sudhir Kumar v. Kuldip Singh Malhotra, (2010-4) 160 P.L.R. 658. 8. In the present case, application made by the tenant under the Indebtedness Act was nothing but a cover-up for its own default in compliance with the order of the Appellate Authority. It is a clear case where despite order of assessment of rent by the Appellate Authority in terms of Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra), compliance having not been made by the tenant-bank. It has incurred liability of eviction. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances, no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned orders (Annexures P-3 and P-4). Affirming the same, this petition being without any merit, is dismissed.