Back
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
(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.
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
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
