Back
2007 Supreme(P&H) 1569
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
Kaushalya Rani (Dead) Through Lrs
Versus
Sham Lal
C.R. No. 2596 of 1995,2597 of 1995,
Decided On : AUGUST 30, 2007
IMPORTANT POINT
Eviction-Non payment of rent-No provisional assessment of the arrears of rent and interest made by the Rent Controller-Rent Controller straight way passing the order of ejectment-Order not sustainable, set aside.
Headnote:(A) East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13-Eviction-Non payment of rent-No provisional assessment of the arrears of rent and interest made by the Rent Controller-The tenant has not tendered rent for the claimed period-Rent Controller straight way passing the order of ejectment-Order not sustainable, set aside.
(B) East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13-Eviction-Non payment of rent-Merely because the tenant took the plea before the Rent Controller that he had already paid the claimed arrears of rent and he did not tender the claimed arrears with interest, and the Rent Controller did not pass any provisional order, it cannot be held that the said decision of the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan case is not applicable. (Para 22)
(C) East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13-Eviction-Assessment of Rent-It was duty of the Rent Controller to make assessment of the arrears of rent and interest. If the Rent Controller, while prima facie accepting the plea of the tenant did not make assessment of the arrears of rent and the interest thereon, it cannot be said that the tenant has failed to comply with the proviso. (Para 22)
(D) East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949-Eviction-Provision--Assessment of Rent-Whether tenant is entitled for the second opportunity to tender or pay the rent as per final adjudication ? Yes-Held; it was incumbent upon Rent Controller to pass a conditional order directing the tenant to place the landlord in possession of the premises by giving reasonable time to the tenant for paying or tendering the deficit amount, failing which alone he shall be liable to be evicted--Case remitted back to the Rent Controller with a direction to pass the conditional order.(Para 22)
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
1. This judgment shall dispose of two Civil Revisions bearing Nos. 2596 of 1995, which are arising from two separate orders, though between the same parties and pertaining to the same premises. Both these petitions are arising from the orders passed in two separate ejectment applications filed by the respondents-landlords on the ground of non-payment of rent for different periods.
2. Civil Revision No. 2596 of 1995 is arising out of Rent Application No. 4344 dated 7.11.1989, whereas Civil Revision No. 2597 of 1995 is arising out of Rent Application No. 11 dated 17.1.1989.
3. The petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the entire SCF No. 66, Sector 47-D, Chandigarh, at a monthly rent of Rs. 3,325/- under the rent noted dated 21.6.1983 (Ex. P-1), executed and signed by both the parties. According to the said rent note, the tenancy was for 11 months and it was agreed that if the tenancy is continued, on mutual understanding upto 2 years, then from 1.7.1985, the rent was to be increased to Rs. 3,425/- per month and from 1.7.1986, it was further increased to Rs. 3,525/-. Similarly, with effect from 1.7.1987, the monthly rent of the premises was to increase from Rs. 3,525/- to Rs. 3,625/- and from 1.7.1988, it was to be increased to Rs. 3,725/- and then from 1.7.1989, the rent was to increase from Rs. 3,725/- to Rs. 3,825/- per month.
4. The respondents-landlords filed Rent Application No. 11 dated 17.1.1989 on the ground of non-payment of rent. In that application, they claimed rent for the following periods :
Rent for the period from 1.9.1988 to 31.1.1989 at the rate of Rs. 3,725/- per month = Rs. 18,625/- In addition to the said rent, the landlords also claimed arrears of rent on account of difference at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month for the period from 1.7.1987 to 31.1.1988, at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month from 1.2.1988 to 30.6.1988 and at the rate of Rs. 300/- for period from 1.7.1988 to 31.8.1988 along with costs and interest upto date.
5. In the second ejectment application i.e. Rent Application No. 4344 dated 7.11.1989, the respondents-landlords claimed the following arrears of rent :-
(A) Rent for the period from 1.9.1988 to 30.6.1989 at the rate of Rs. 3,725/- per month = Rs. 37,250/- (B) Rent from 1.7.1989 to 30.11.1989 at the rate of Rs. 3,825/- per month = Rs. 19,125/- Total = Rs. 56,375/-
In addition to the said rent, the landlords also claimed arrears of rent on account of difference at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month for the period from 1.7.1987 to 31.1.1988, at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month from 1.7.1988 to 30.6.1988 and at the rate of Rs. 300/- for period from 1.7.1988 to 31.8.1988 along with costs and interest upto date.
6. It is pertinent to mention here that the arrears of rent claimed in Rent Application No. 11 dated 17.1.1989 is covered by Rent Application No. 4344 dated 7.11.1989. Therefore, the facts in this case are being taken from Rent Application No. 4344 dated 7.11.1989.
7. The petitioner-tenant appeared and contested the aforesaid ejectment applications. In the written statement, it was stated that the rent claimed by the landlords had either been tendered in the court or paid to Kura Mal and Anil Kumar, the relatives of the landlords, against the receipts. Thus, it was stated that the total rent, covering this period stands paid and receipts would be produced in the court. It is pertinent to mention here that in this case, since a plea was taken by the petitioner-tenant that the claimed rent had already been paid against the receipts, therefore, the Rent Controller did not assess any rent or interest. However, the cost of the petition was assessed as Rs. 200/-, which was paid by the petitioner-tenant on the first date of hearing. Thereafter, on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed ;
1. Whether respondent (petitioner herein) is in arrears of rent ? OPA
2. Whether rent claimed by petitioners (respondents herein) have been paid by the respon
