Back
2003 Supreme(P&H) 857
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
Deep Chand
Versus
Devinder Parshad
Civil Revision No. 62 of 1994,
Decided On : MAY 30, 2003
The Rent Act is a complete code, and only specific provisions of the Code are applicable to the proceedings under the Rent Act. The court also established that the tenant was not liable for interest or costs as he had already paid the rent in excess.
Headnote:
Rent Control - Ejectment Application - Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Haryana Act, 1973 - Section 13 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the applicability of the Rent Act and the Code of Civil Procedure to the proceedings, emphasizing that the Rent Act is a complete code and only specific provisions of the Code are applicable. The court also highlighted the lack of applicability of certain provisions of the Code, such as Order XXII Rule 3(2), to the revision filed under the Rent Act.
Fact of the Case:
The tenant filed a revision petition against an ejectment order for non-payment of rent. The court found that the tenant had already paid the rent in excess and was not liable for interest or costs, ultimately dismissing the ejectment application.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tenant had paid the rent in excess and was not liable for interest or costs, leading to the dismissal of the ejectment application.
Issues: The issues included whether the arrears of rent had been paid, whether the respondent was liable to pay rent and interest, and the effect of non-payment of rent and interest.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the tenant was not in arrears of rent and had already paid the rent in excess, thus not liable for interest or costs. The court also emphasized the lack of applicability of certain provisions of the Code to the proceedings under the Rent Act.
Final Decision: The court set aside the orders of the lower courts and dismissed the ejectment application, finding that the tenant was not liable for ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent.
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
1. This order shall dispose of Civil Miscellaneous No. 22381-CII of 2002 as well as Civil Revision No. 62 of 1984.
2. Deep Chand tenant (now deceased), filed the instant revision petition against the order of ejectment passed against him by the Rent Controller, Hisar as well as the Appellate Authority Hisar on the ground of non-payment of rent.
3. The demised premises in this case are two adjoining rooms which are on rent with the petitioner at monthly rent of Rs. 32/- (Rs. 16/- for each room). The respondent-landlord filed an ejectment application against the petitioner on the grounds of non-payment of rent and change of user. The said ejectment application was allowed by the learned Rent Controller on 24.3.1981 only on the ground of change of user as the petitioner paid the claimed arrears of rent on the first date of hearing. Against that order, the respondent-landlord filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. In that appeal, ejectment order was stayed. Thereupon, the respondent-landlord filed an application for vacation of stay on 25.5.1981 alleging that the petitioner was not paying rent of the demised premises, therefore, the stay be vacated. On that application the Appellate Authority, on 28.5.1981, ordered that the stay granted to the petitioner shall remain operative subject to deposit of arrears of rent by him with effect from 1.5.1980 to 31.5.1981. In compliance of that order, on 2.6.1981, the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs. 416/-, towards rent from 1.5.1980 to 31.5.1981, vide challan mark RA which is available on the record of the learned trial court at page 21. Subsequently, the Appellate Authority, vide order dated 13.8.1981 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. However, the said orders of ejectment were set aside by this Court in Civil Revision No. 2236 of 1981 on 15.11.1983 and the ejectment application filed by the respondent-landlord was dismissed.
4. During the pendency of the aforesaid appeal before the Appellate Authority, the respondent-landlord filed a fresh application for ejectment of the tenant under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Haryana Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act) on 11.4.1981 only on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent from 1.5.1980 till the date of filing of the application (which is the application in question now). Pursuant to the notice issued to the petitioner in the said ejectment application, the petitioner-tenant appeared on 14.8.1981 and the case was adjourned to 28.8.1981 for tendering the rent etc. On that date, the petitioner made the statement that he had already paid the rent for the relevant period i.e. from 1.5.1980 to 30.4.1981, therefore, no arrears of rent was due towards him and thus, he did not want to tender any rent. Thereafter, on 29.9.1981, the petitioner filed written statement, in which he has specifically stated that he had already paid the arrears of rent claimed by the respondent under the order of the Appellate Authority, therefore, the ejectment application is liable to be dismissed. In replication, the respondent-landlord did not dispute the aforesaid fact. However, it was pleaded as under:
"The alleged rent deposited on 2.6.1981 is not a legal deposit nor the petitioner is bound and that rent was deposited only to get the stay order. The petitioner has not realised that amount."
5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues:
1. Whether the arrears of rent have already been paid? OPR
2. respondent is liable to pay rent and interest? OPP
3. What is the effect of non-payment of rent and interest and costs? O.P. Parties.
4. Relief.
6. It is specifically mentioned here that in the instant case, both the parties neither examined any witness nor themselves appeared in the witness box as their own witness. Only the documents were tendered by them in evidence. The learned Rent Controller, vide his order dated 12.1.1983, pas
