1. Eviction proceedings under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, following a tenant's failure to comply with a provisional rent assessment. (Para 2 , 4 , 6 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 329
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI., D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.
DALIP KAUR BRAR – APPELLANT
VERSUS
M/S.GURU GRANTH SAHIB SEWA MISSION (REGD.) AND ANR. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5129 OF 2017 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 24952 of 2015]
Decided On : 11-04-2017
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
A tenant would be protected from eviction only if he complies with provisions of Section 13(2)(i) of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949.
A tenant would be protected from eviction only if he complies with provisions of Section 13(2)(i) of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949.
Subject
Civil Law - Rent Control
Act Referred
Headnote
(a) East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 – Section 15(1)(b) – Appeal and revision – Eviction order passed by Rent controller – Conditional stay granted on condition of deposit – Appeal thereagainst pending before appellate authority – Respondent approaching appellate authority for modification of condition and extension of time – Appeal dismissed – Respondent approaching High Court in revision challenging order of eviction as well as dismissal of applications for modification and conditions and extension of time – Held, challenge to order of eviction could not be subject matter of revision in view of pendency of the appeal – Two parallel proceedings in appeal and revision against same order cannot be initiated and maintained – High Court decision cannot be construed to interdict order of eviction – Issue estoppel and res judicata. (Para 15, 16)
(1999) 5 SCC 590; (2012) 12 SCC 554 – Relied upon
(b) East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 – Section 13(2)(i) – Eviction for default – Provisions of Section 13 must be interpreted to bring about a just balance between the rights of the tenant and those of the landlord – Provisional determination of arrears of rent, interest and costs by Rent Controller – Even if the rent determined provisionally by Rent Controller is excessive tenant has a remedy at the time of final determination – Rent controller can issue directions for refund or adjustment of the rent paid in excess – Rent controller has to order eviction for non deposit of rent etc determined provisionally – Correctness of the provisional rent can be addressed at the time of final assessment or in appeal after complying with orders of Rent Controller – Correctness of order of eviction can be challenged in appeal even after eviction. (Para 27)
(2002)5 SCC 440; (2003) 11 SCC 397; (2011)11 SCC 672 – Relied upon
(c) East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 – Section 13(2)(i), Proviso – Eviction for default – Tenant unwilling to comply with orders of Rent controller – Legislative concession, extended to tenants available conditionally – Tenant can be saved against eviction only if he satisfies the conditions laid down – Words “assessed by the Rent Controller”, cannot be construed as “correctly assessed” – Cheques issued by tenant dishonoured – Tenant making every kind of excuse for not paying the rent due and payable – Tenant not depositing rent etc determined provisionally by Rent controller – Belated deposit will not enure to benefit of tenant. (Para 28)
(2011)11 SCC 672 – Referred
Facts of the case:
The appellant is the landlord. The Respondents are her tenants.
The appellant filed the eviction suit on ground of default in payment of rent.
The respondents contested the ground of default by claiming that they had paid an advance of six months’ rent and hence no arrears were due.
The Rent Controller by an order dated 14 November 2007 made a provisional assessment of rent and directed the respondents to deposit an amount of Rupees 19,000 per month with effect from 1 June 2005 together with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum and costs quantified at Rupees 500.
The respondents failed to comply with the order of provisional assessment.
the Rent Controller passed an order of eviction.
The respondents challenged the order of the Rent Controller making a provisional determination of the rent, the order of eviction dated 14 December 2007 and the order of the appellate authority declining to stay the execution proceedings in revision before the High Court which was allowed setting aside the order of eviction.
Finding of the Court:
High Court ought not allow the revision.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the challenge to the eviction order was barred by issue estoppel and whether an erroneous provisional rent assessment invalidates a subsequent eviction order. (Para 13 , 14 )
3. The proviso to Section 13(2)(i) is a conditional concession requiring compliance with provisional assessments to protect tenants from eviction, balancing landlord and tenant rights. (Para 18 , 19 , 21 , 27 , 28 )
4. Failure to comply with a provisional rent assessment under Section 13(2)(i) justifies eviction, as the proviso is a conditional concession requiring strict adherence. (Para 19 , 21 , 27 )
5. Appeal allowed, High Court order set aside, and the Rent Controller's eviction order restored. (Para 29 , 30 )
6. What is the effect of the proviso to Section 13(2)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949?
It is a conditional concession creating a deeming fiction. If a tenant pays the arrears, interest, and costs assessed by the Rent Controller on the first hearing, they are deemed to have paid the rent within the statutory time, thereby avoiding eviction. (Para 18 , 19 )
7. How does a provisional assessment of rent function under Section 13?
The Rent Controller makes a prima facie provisional assessment. The tenant must deposit this amount to avoid eviction. Any discrepancy is resolved during final adjudication, where overpayments are refunded or deficits are demanded. (Para 20 , 21 )
8. Can a tenant challenge a provisional assessment order in an appeal against the final eviction order?
Yes. An interlocutory order of provisional assessment that was not appealed separately can be challenged within an appeal against the final order of eviction, as the eviction order depends on the correctness of the assessment. (Para 23 , 25 )
9. Does a minor error in a provisional assessment justify a tenant's total failure to deposit rent?
No. A tenant who fails to deposit even admitted dues cannot seek protection based on a flawed provisional assessment, as the proviso is a conditional concession that requires compliance to prevent eviction. (Para 27 , 28 )
JUDGMENT
Dr. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J
Leave granted.
2. The Rent Controller ordered that the tenant be evicted under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (the Act) for defaulting in the payment of rent. The Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the order of eviction. The correctness of the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge on 29 April 2015 has been called into question. The appellant is the landlord. The Respondents are her tenants.
3. On 1 June 2005 a lease was executed by the appellant by which a residential property, bearing House No. 2535 in Sector 35-C at Chandigarh, was let out to the respondents. The term of the lease was three years commencing on 1 June 2005, to end on 31 October 2008. The rent agreed was Rupees 25,000 for an initial period of one year which was to be enhanced to Rupees 28,000 commencing from 1 June 2006 for the remainder of the term.
4. On 8 November 2006, the appellant filed an ejectment application under Section 13 of the Act on the ground that : (i) the respondents failed to pay the rent from 1 November 2005 to 31 May 2006 at the agreed rate of Rupees 25,000 per month and with effect from 1 June 2006 at the rate of Rupees 28,000 per month, and the cheques which were issued were dishonoured; (ii) the premises have been kept locked and were not being used for sufficient reason since December 2005.
5. The respondents contested the ground of default by claiming that they had paid an advance of six months’ rent and hence no arrears were due.
6. The Rent Controller by an order dated 14 November 2007 made a provisional assessment of rent and directed the respondents to deposit an amount of Rupees 19,000 per month with effect from 1 June 2005 together with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum and costs quantified at Rupees 500. The order of the Rent Controller fixed the proceedings on 14 December 2007 for payment or tender of the rent as provisionally assessed.
7. On 14 December 2007 the respondents filed an application for review on the ground that though the appellant had claimed rent with effect from 1 November 2005 the direction for deposit was with effect from 1 June 2005. The fact that the respondents were in arrears appears not to have been in dispute for even in the application for review the prayer was in the following terms :
“…It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the order dated 14.11.2007 may kindly be reviewed and set aside and the Respondent, be allowed to tender the rent from 01.03.2007 to 14.11.2007, in the interest of justice.”
The respondents failed to comply with the order of provisional assessment.
8. Since the respondents failed to comply with the order by which provisional rent was determined together with interest and costs, the Rent Controller passed an order of eviction on 14 December 2007. The respondents filed an appeal against the order. On 7 January 2008 a conditional stay was granted by the District and Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, acting as the appellate authority, by which the order of eviction was stayed subject to the deposit of rent within a period of one month before the Rent Controller and the continued deposit of the monthly rent by the seventh day of every succeeding month. The respondents failed to comply with the conditions subject to which stay was granted. Instead, they filed on 7 February 2008 an application for modifying the order dated 7 January 2008. On 11 February 2008, the respondents filed an application for extension of time. The appellate court by its order dated 18 February 2008 dismissed the applications for modification and for extension of time.
9. The first round of proceedings before the High Court was then initiated by the respondents by instituting a civil revision application, RA 1948 of 2008 in which they sought to challenge the order of eviction dated 14 December 2007, the order granting conditional stay dated 7 January 2008 and the order of the appellate court dated 18 February 2008 dismissing th
