SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(P&H) 652

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.M.Kumar, J.
Devinder Singh Puri
Versus
Mr. B.N. Rampal
Civil Revision No. 4295 of 2000,
Decided On : JULY 2, 2004

Non-payment of rent is a ground for ejectment, and delay tactics can lead to dismissal of a petition.

Headnote:

Rent Arrears - East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Section 15(5)

Fact of the Case:

The tenant-petitioner challenged findings of arrears of rent from 03.04.1994 to 31.12.1994. The tenant's assertion of a compromise in February 1995 was disbelieved due to lack of evidence.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found the tenant in arrears of rent and rejected the tenant's dispute of title. The tenant's delay tactics were criticized, and the petition was dismissed.

Issues: Arrears of rent, dispute of title, delay tactics

Ratio Decidendi: Non-payment of rent is a ground for ejectment. The tenant's failure to prove payment of rent led to dismissal. The tenant's delay tactics were condemned.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed due to arrears of rent and delay tactics by the tenant.

Judgment

M.M.Kumar, J.

1. This petition presents a piquant situation in as much as the tenant-petitioner who has insisted on appearing in person has not only miss-used the process of the Court but has refused to assist the Court. This has resulted into wastage of the precious time of the Court and the administration of justice has also suf-fered. The instant petition has been filed under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below holding that the tenant-petitioner is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 03.04.1994 to 31.12.1994. The assertion made by the tenant-petitioner that there was a compromise entered into between the parties in the month of February, 1995 and the rent was paid in the presence of the brother of the landlord-respondent has been disbelieved as no evidence of fact of payment of rent has been tendered except the bald statement of the tenant-etitioner. It has also been found that the rate of rent has been Rs. 2,250/- per month and the premises were given on rent w.e.f. 01.11.1992. In March,1993 also an ejectment petition was filed against the tenant-petitioner where he tendered the rent upto 31.08.1993 along with interest in the Court of Rent Controller, Chandigarh on 23.11.1993. That ejectment petition was thereafter withdrawn. Another petition seeking ejectment of the tenant-petitioner on the ground of arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.09.1993 to 31.12.1993 was also filed. The exparte eviction order was passed against the tenant-petitioner.

2. The Courts below have also found that there is relationship of landlord and tenant as it has been admitted by the tenant-petitioner that the landlord-respondent is the co-landlord alongwith his brother Mr. D.N. Rampal when he appears as RW-1. He also admitted that he had been paying rent to the landlord-respondent who had in fact created tenancy with the tenant-petitioner. On that basis it has been found that the tenant-petitioner is not entitled to raise any dispute of title in respect of his landlord. The document EX.PX has been admitted by the tenant-petitioner which shows that the tenant-petitioner has tendered security amount of Rs. 2,250/- to the landlord-respondent and the tenancy was to start from 01.11.1992 with the rate of rent of Rs.2,220/- per month. The petitioner also filed an application for review of the order dated 24.12.1997 passed by the Rent Controller ordering his ejectment. The application was rejected by the Rent Controller on 21.01.1998. Another application for adducing of additional evidence was also rejected on 14.02.1998.

3. In the appeal filed before the Appellate Authority it has been noticed that the tenant-petitioner has refused to address arguments despite the undertaking given by him to argue the case on an earlier occasion. The Appellate Authority proceeded to hear the arguments of the landlord-respondent and accordingly recorded the following findings : -

"Now it has to be seen whether the appellant was in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.04.1994 till the date of filing of the petition i.e. 14.12.1994. From the pleadings of respondent in para 1 of the petition, it is clear that the appellant was required to pay the rent in advance by 7th of each month. Thus, when the present petition was filed on 14.12.1994 and the rent was not paid by the appellant, it means the rent of the month December, 1994 had also become due on the date of institution of the petition because of the plea regarding liability to pay rent in advance has not been disputed, thus, the appellant was in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.04.1994 to 31.12.1994 as per the case of the respondent. On the other hand the appellant in his written statement has pleaded that there was a dispute between the parties regarding the handing over the possession of one room and the compromise was arrived at between them in the month of February, 1995 at the instance of the brother of the respondent and at that time the rent













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top