Back
2010 Supreme(P&H) 2547
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Alok Singh, J.
Sandeep Shahi
Versus
Asha Rani
CR No. 1595 of 2009,
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 7, 2010
IMPORTANT POINT
Eviction--Once relationship of landlord-tenant is denied, neither assessment of rent is required to be made nor or any opportunity is required to be given to tenant to pay arrears of rent.
Headnote:(A) East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, S.13 and 15(5)--Eviction--Denial of relationship of Landlord and Tenant--Once relationship of landlord-tenant is denied, neither assessment of rent is required to be made nor or any opportunity is required to be given to tenant to pay arrears of rent. (Para 13)
(B) East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, S.13 and 15(5)--Eviction--Denial of relationship between Landlord and Tenant--On first date of hearing, tenant has paid only Rs.40,000/- while as per finding recorded by both Courts below, total outstanding amount was Rs.3,97,915/-.--Hence, tenant failed to pay arrears of rent and made him liable to be evicted--Held, that, if tenant denies relationship of landlord-tenant or tenders lesser amount, he does so at his own risk and if at final stage, Courts come to conclusion that relationship of landlord - tenant was wrongly denied and OP is landlord of property, eviction must follow and no opportunity should be given to tenant to make good deficiency in arrears of rent. (Para 14)
Alok Singh, J.
1. Tenant has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Section 15 (5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 1949 Act), assailing the order dated 7.2.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, thereby allowing the appeal filed by the landlord and directing eviction of the tenant - revisionist and further directing the tenant to hand over vacant possession of the premises in dispute to the landlord within two months from today.
2. Brief facts of the present case, inter-alia, are that the respondent - landlord herein filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the 1949 Act for the ejectment of the revisionist - tenant on the averments that the applicant is the owner/landlord of Industrial Shed No. 136-140/82, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh; the revisionist took a part of the premises measuring 1000 sq. ft. on rent on 1.11.1993 @ Rs. 10,000/- per month excluding water and electricity charges and the rent was to be increased every year @ 10 percent. The rent as agreed was as under :-
"1. 01.11.93 to 31.10.94 Rs. 10,000/- PM 2. 01.11.94 to 31.10.95 Rs. 11,000/- PM 3. 01.11.95 to 31.10.96 Rs. 12,100/- PM 4. 01.11.96 to 31.10.97 Rs. 13,310/- PM 5. 01.11.97 to 31.10.98 Rs. 14,640/- PM 6. 01.11.98 to 31.10.99 Rs. 16,105/- PM"
3. The rent was payable on or before 7th of each month. The tenant was to pay rent amounting to Rs.7,80,915/- upto 31.1.1999 and he paid only Rs. 3,83,000/- and he is in arrears of rent amounting Rs. 3,97,915/-.
4. On the notice, the revisionist came present and tendered Rs. 40,000/- as arrears of rent from 1.11.1998 to 28.2.1999 @ Rs. 10,000/- per month, Rs. 3500/- as interest and costs as assessed by the Rent Controller on 7.3.2007 and denied that applicant is owner/landlord of the premises in dispute. It was further pleaded by the revisionist that the disputed premises has been resumed by the Industries and Tourism development Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh.
5. The Rent Controller vide order dated 7.11.2005 has held the rate of rent as Rs. 10,000/- per month and the respondent is tenant of the petitioner. The Rent Controller granted one months time to pay the rent amounting to Rs. 6,55,000/- and the land lord was directed to set off any other amount he received from the tenant, failing which the tenant was directed to hand over the possession of the premises to the landlord. Feeling aggrieved from the judgement of the Rent Controller, Appeal No. 20 of 2005 was preferred before the Appellate Authority, which was allowed by the Appellate Authority vide impugned judgement dated 7.2.2009, thereby holding that rate of rent is Rs. 10,000/- per month. It is further held that the revisionist - tenant was in arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 3,97,915/- on the date of filing of the petition and the tender made by the tenant was short and invalid. It was further held by the Appellate Authority that once relationship of landlord - tenant is denied between the parties, then there was no need to give any opportunity to the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent. Ultimately, eviction order was passed by the Appellate Authority vide impugned judgement dated 7.2.2009. Feeling aggrieved from the judgement of the Appellate Authority, the tenant has approached this Court by way of present revision petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the alleged rent deed is unregistered and hence, cannot be read in evidence. It was further argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the judgement of the Apex Court in Rakesh Wadhawan v. M/s. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, reported in 2002(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 514 : 2005(5) SCC 440, the Rent Controller was well within his jurisdiction while granting an opportunity to the petitioner to pay arrears of rent and the judgement of the Appellate Authority is wrong in view of the dictum of the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawans case (supra).
7. Learned counsel for the respondent veh
