Court confirms that a tenant's good faith intent to pay addresses eviction liability if the Rent Controller fails to accurately assess due rent, emphasizing fair enforcement of the law.

JUDGMENT :

Vikram Aggarwal, J. (Oral)

The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 15.11.2021 (Annexure P-1) vide which the application filed by the present petitioner for passing an order of eviction on account of non-deposit of the rent assessed vide order dated 15.07.2021 was dismissed and the application filed by the respondents-tenants for depositing the rent was allowed.

2. The facts, as emanating from the revision petition and as have been stated by learned counsel for the parties are that an eviction petition was filed by the petitioner-landlord (Pradeep Kumar) against the respondents-tenants under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Rent Act'). Vide order dated 15.07.2021 (Annexure P-2), provisional assessment of rent was done. A sum of Rs.12,600/- was determined as arrears of rent, costs were assessed at Rs.1,000/- and interest @ 6% per annum was also ordered to be paid on the outstanding amount. The matter was then fixed for 11.08.2021 for tender of rent. On 11.08.2021, a sum of Rs.10,000/- was deposited by the respondents-tenants upon which an objection was raised by the petitioner-landlord that the rent was short, though the said amount was accepted under protest. The case of the petitioner is that on account of short tender of rent, eviction should have been ordered by the Rent Controller keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the case of ' Rakesh Wadhawan Vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation ', 2002 AIR (Supreme Court) 2004.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the amount of rent tendered was short, then, in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of ' Rakesh Wadhawan Vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation ' (supra) and the judgments passed by this Court in the case of ' M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. and another Vs. M/s Shakti Floor Roller Mills ', 2022 (2) R.C.R. (Rent) 636 and ' Jasbir Singh Vs. Gurmej Singh ', 2022 (2) R.C.R. (Rent) 634, the only option with the Rent Controller was to order eviction of the respondents-tenants. Notice of the Court has been drawn to the application dated 11.08.2021 (Annexure P-3) moved by the petitioner-landlord on 11.08.2021 itself for passing of eviction orders and the application dated 11.08.2021 (Annexure P-4) moved by the respondents-tenants for deposit of rent. He submits that the application moved by the respondents-tenants would show that the amount was again not tendered and it was only stated that the applicant was ready to pay the remaining amount of Rs.4,356/- out of the total amount of Rs.14356/- after deducting Rs.10,000/- which had already been paid. He submits that the application itself shows that in fact there was no intention to pay and, therefore, the eviction order should have been passed.

5. Learned Senior counsel has also referred to the order dated 12.01.2022 (Annexure P-9) wherein again learned counsel for the respondents-tenants had stated that he intended to pay a sum of Rs.7,002/-. Learned Senior counsel submits that mere intention to pay would not be sufficient and there should have been actual tender of the rent assessed. Apart from the judgments referred to above, reliance has also been placed upon the judgments passed by this Court in the case of ' Ajit Singh Vs. Harjit Kaur ', 2017 (3) RCR (Civil) 882 (Annexure P-10) and ' Ashok Kumar Vs. Gurdev Sin