2018 Supreme(P&H) 3705

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
Paramdeep Singh - Appellant
Versus
Kanwaljit Singh And Others - Respondent
Civil Revision No. 1074 of 2011
Decided On : 25-09-2018

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Rent Controller is duty-bound to assess the provisional rent and grant a second opportunity to the tenant if the provisional assessment of rent was erroneous, as per the interpretation of Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Headnote:

Rent Controller - East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act - Section 13 - [30. To sum up, our conclusions are: 1. In Section 13(2)(i) proviso, the words 'assessed by the Controller' qualify not merely the words 'the cost of application' but the entire preceding part of the sentence i.e. 'the arrears of rent and interest at six per cent per annum on such arrears together with the cost of application'. 2. The proviso to Section 13(2)(i) of East Punjab Urban Restriction Act, 1949 casts an obligation on the Controller to make an assessment of (i) arrears of rent (ii) the interest on such arrears, and (iii) the cost of application and then quantify by way of an interim or provisional order the amount which the tenant must pay or tender on the 'first date of hearing' after the passing of such order of 'assessment' by the Controller so as to satisfy the requirement of the proviso. 3. Of necessity, 'the date of first hearing of the application' would mean the date falling after the date of such order by Controller. 4. On the failure of the tenant to comply, nothing remains to be done and an order for eviction shall follow. If the tenant makes compliance, the inquiry shall continue for finally adjudicating upon the dispute as to the arrears of rent in the light of the contending pleas raised by the landlord and the tenant before the Controller. 5. If the final adjudication by the Controller be at variance with his interim or provisional order passed under the proviso, one of the following two orders may be made depending on the facts situation of a given case. If the amount deposited by the tenant is found to be in excess, the Controller may direct a refund. If, on the other hand, the amount deposited by the tenant is found to be short or deficient, the Controller may pass a conditional order directing tenant to place the landlord in possession of the premises by giving a reasonable time to the tenant for paying or tendering the deficit amount, failing which alone he shall be liable to be evicted. Compliance shall save him from eviction. 6. While exercising discretion for affording the tenant an opportunity of making good the deficit, one of the relevant factors to be taken into consideration by the Controller would be, whether the tenant has paid or tendered with substantial regularity the rent falling due month by month during the pendency of the proceedings.]

Fact of the Case:

The tenant-petitioner filed a revision petition against the order passed by the Appellate Authority, claiming that the Rent Controller should have provisionally assessed the rent and granted an opportunity to tender the rent before ordering eviction on the ground of non-payment, as per Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the Rent Controller had erred in not assessing the provisional rent as required by law and in not granting a second opportunity to the tenant after the final determination of the rent. The Court set aside the judgments of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, directing the Rent Controller to assess the provisional rent and proceed with the case.

Issues: The main issue was whether the Rent Controller was duty-bound to assess the provisional rent and grant a second opportunity to the tenant as per Section 13 of the Act, and whether the tenant's intention was bona fide.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Rent Controller is obligated to assess the provisional rent and grant a second opportunity to the tenant if the provisional assessment of rent was erroneous, as per the interpretation of Section 13 of the Act by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Court also distinguished cases where the tenant's intention was honest and bona fide from cases where it was not, and emphasized the duty of the Rent Controller in such situations.

Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, and the judgments of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority were set aside. The Rent Controller was directed to assess the provisional rent as required by law and proceed with the case.