Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.
Jagdish Singh Pathania – Appellant
Versus
Parshottam Kumar - Respondent
Civil Revision No. 83, 84 of 2022
Decided on : 10-03-2023
H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 - Section 14(2)(i) – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - East Punjab Urban Rent Restrictions Act 1949 - Section 13(2) (i) - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 141 - Order of eviction - Arrears of rent - Personal use - Possession of shop - Landlord has filed rent petition for eviction of tenant from Shop on grounds of arrears of rent and personal use – An admission made by a party can be used against said party as admission of a fact by party is best evidence which can be used by other party against party admitting fact. (Para 31)
Finding of the Court: It is settled law that once an order has been passed unless same is set aside or stayed such order cannot be considered nonest by person against whom it has been passed, and in absence of setting aside said order or stay by competent Court against said order, said order has to be followed and failure in compliance thereof, shall be followed by legal consequences - Once a period is fixed by statutory provision or propounded in binding pronouncement of Supreme Court as a date for performing act in terms of provisions of law, said date is neither extendable nor enlargeable, in absence of any provision of such extension or enlargement and such date in present case is date of first hearing of application and as tenant has failed to comply with order on such date, therefore, he is liable to face legal consequences thereof as summed up by Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan’s case – Court find no illegality, irregularity or perversity warranting interference in impugned orders.
Result: Petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
These Civil Revision Petitions, arising out of the same rent petition, bearing Rent Case No. 05 of 2017 titled Parshotam Kumar vs, Jagdish Singh Pathania filed under H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (in short’ H.P. Rent Control Act) and for involvement of common question of facts and law to be appreciated for adjudication of these petitions, are being decided by this common order.
2. Petitioner herein is tenant, whereas respondent is landlord. For convenience, hereinafter, they shall be referred as per their status in rent petition i.e. petitioner as tenant and respondent as landlord.
3. Landlord has filed above referred rent petition for eviction of tenant from Shop No. 1153 situated in Main Bazar, Nurpur, on the grounds of arrears of rent and personal use as daughter of landlord intends to start practice as lawyer with averments that said shop was rented to tenant for non-residential purpose at the rate of Rs.500/- per month w.e.f. 1.3.1988 and its rent was increased and is at the rate of Rs.2200/- per month w.e.f. 1.4.2015 and since April, 2016 no rent has been paid.
4. Tenant contested the petition on the ground of maintainability, locus standi and estoppal and denied the letting out of premises at the rate of Rs.500/- per month but with submissions that it was let out at the rate of Rs.475/- per month and increase of rent to Rs.2200/- w.e.f. 1.4.2015 or arrears of rent were denied with further submissions that tenant was regularly paying rent to landlord and landlord after receiving rent used to interfere in day-to-day affairs compelling the tenant to file suit against landlord for restraining him from interfering in peaceful possession of tenant over the shop. Further that tenant was paying rent through Money Orders after filing of suit but landlord intentionally did not receive the same since April, 2016 and lastly that tenant was having no other source of income whereas landlord was having 8 shops within Municipal Area Nurpur and three shops are available with him being vacant.
5. Issues in rent petition were framed by Rent Controller on 31.5.2019. At that stage, on 8.9.2020, landlord moved an application under Section 151 CPC for assessment of arrears of rent along with interest and cost in consonance with law laid down by Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation reported in 2002(1) RCR 514, w.e.f. April, 2016 till upto date.
6. The application was opposed on the ground that tenant was regularly paying the rent but landlord did not receive it with intention to make a ground for eviction and law cited in application was not applicable in present case having no concern with present case.
7. Landlord in rent petition had claimed rent at the rate of Rs.500/- with increase to Rs.2200/- since 1.4.2015 whereas tenant had claimed rate of rent at Rs.475/- per month since beginning with no increase at any point of time.
8. Rent Controller, vide order dated 1.10.2020, relying upon pronouncement of Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan’s case and taking into consideration rate of rent as admitted by tenant at the rate of Rs.475/- per month along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, calculated the arrears as Rs.32,703.75 and by adding the cost assessed at the rate of Rs.2000/-, directed the tenant to deposit the same on or before next date of hearing to avoid eviction on account of non-payment of arrears of rent. Next date in the case was fixed as 29.10.2020 for payment of provisional rent arrears along with interest and cost and for further proceedings.
9. Aforesaid order dated 1.10.2020 was assailed by tenant by filing Rent Appeal No.03-N/XIV/2020 which was dismissed by Appellate Authority-II, Kangra at Dharamshala vide judgment dated 9.4.2021 on the ground that in view of judgment of Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan’s case, Rent Controller was obliged and duty bound to fix ‘provisional rent’ and he has calculated the provisional rent, on the basis of rate of rent of shop admitted by tenant i
A tenant's failure to deposit assessed rent on time under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 leads to automatic eviction, with no provision for extending the payment deadline.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 13(2)(i) of the Haryana Rent Act, the tenant must tender the assessed rent on the first date after assessment, failure of which ....
The tenant remains liable to pay rent even after lease termination, and the Rent Controller can assess provisional rent, ensuring compliance with tenancy laws.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to extend the period for tendering the provisionally assessed arrears of rent, and failure to comply w....
Court confirms that a tenant's good faith intent to pay addresses eviction liability if the Rent Controller fails to accurately assess due rent, emphasizing fair enforcement of the law.
The failure of a tenant to comply with a Rent Controller's order for provisional rent assessment necessitates eviction, as the Controller has no jurisdiction to extend the payment period.
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
