A tenant's failure to deposit assessed rent on time under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 leads to automatic eviction, with no provision for extending the payment deadline.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Namit Kumar, J. (Oral)

CM-8627-CII-2022

Prayer in the instant application filed under section 151 of CPC is for seeking exemption from filing certified copies of Annexures P-1 to P-8 as well as impugned orders.

Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions.

CM-14280-CII-2023

Prayer in the instant application filed under section 151 CPC read with Order 7, Rule 14 of CPC is for placing on record certified copy of the application filed by the petitioner before the learned Rent Controller, Bathinda for allowing an adjournment.

Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions.

CR-2809-2022 (O&M)

The instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner/tenant impugning the order dated 04.03.2022 passed by learned Rent Controller, Bathinda in Rent Petition No.26 of 2021 titled as 'Gangeshwar Bansal and others v. Kultar Singh' whereby an eviction petition filed by the respondents/landlord has been allowed as well as order dated 13.05.2022 passed by learned Appellate Authority, Bathinda in Rent Appeal No.3 of 2022 whereby an appeal filed by the petitioner/tenant against the order dated 04.03.2022 has been dismissed.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case as pleaded in the petition are that the respondents are the joint owner of entire building bearing M.C. No.4969, Afim Wali Gali, Bathinda. The said building is triple storey building, in which, 16 shops are constructed on the ground floor, which were rented out to the different tenants. On 01.04.1991, respondent No.1 rented out the demised premises to the petitioner and as per the rent note the petitioner was agreed to pay rent @ Rs.1,000/- per month which was enhanced @ 15% on enhanced rate, after every three years. The rent was paid by the petitioner on proper receipt, which was also duly acknowledged by the petitioner, by appending his signatures on the rent receipt and the rent receipt was always having two copies, one of which was handed over to the petitioner and the other receipt was retained by the respondents for the purpose of record. As such, there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. However, the respondents have filed the eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the 1949 Act') on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.10.2016. It was further alleged that the demised premises was bonafidely required by respondents No.1 and 3 for their own personal use and occupation for running business of wholesale medicines and the other respondents have no objection regarding the same. All the other tenants have vacated the demised premises. The respondents made repeated requests to the petitioner to vacate the demised premises but to no effect. Upon notice, the petitioner appeared through counsel and filed written reply raising legal objections that the petition is not maintainable. On merits, it is submitted that the petitioner is a good tenant and has been paying the rent regularly to the respondents. The respondents, illegally with ulterior motive, did not receive arrears of rent and due rent from the petitioner, in order to create a ground for eviction. The respondents filed rejoinder reiterating the averments as made in the petition as correct and denying the allegations as made in the written reply filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, learned Rent Controller, Bathinda vide order dated 02.02.2022, assessed the provisional rent from 01.10.2016 to 31.01.2022 and the petitioner was directed to tender the provisional assessed rent on the next date of hearing i.e. on 04.03.2022. However, on 04.03.2022, the petitioner failed to deposit the arrears of rent and after hearing counsel for both the parties, learned Rent Controller, Bathinda allowed the petition with costs and directed the petitioner to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondents within two months, from the date of ejectment order. The said order was challenged by the