Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 7289
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Archana Puri, J
Budh Singh And Sons – Appellant
Versus
Jagmohan Chourasia – Respondent
CR-8225-2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kanwaljit Singh, Muskan Sharma
For the Respondents: Avnish Mittal
Under the Haryana (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, a tenant is strictly obligated to tender the provisionally assessed rent by the first date of hearing following the Rent Controller's order; failing this, the controller has no jurisdiction to extend time, and an eviction order must follow.
Headnote:(A) Haryana (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 - Section 13(2)(i) - Eviction - Non-payment of rent - Provisional assessment - Tenant failed to tender rent on the date fixed - Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to extend the period for payment beyond the first date of hearing after assessment - Failure to comply with the conditional order warrants eviction. (Paras 10, 15, 16)
(B) Appellate Review - Scope of revision - High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of subordinate courts unless there is clear perversity or illegality in the orders. (Para 19)
Facts of the case:
The landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant for non-payment of rent and bonafide personal necessity. The Rent Controller assessed provisional rent on 15.05.2018. On the date fixed for payment (29.05.2018), the tenant sought an adjournment instead of tendering rent. Consequently, the landlord refused the tender offered on the following day, 30.05.2018, as time-barred. Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority ordered eviction.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the tenant failed to tender the rent on the first date of hearing as per the mandatory requirement of law. The Rent Controller correctly followed the procedure for assessment and the tenant’s failure to adhere to the deadline resulted in the eviction order.
Issues: Whether the Rent Controller has the jurisdiction to extend the time for payment of provisionally assessed rent and whether the tenant’s failure to tender rent on the date fixed is grounds for eviction.
Ratio Decidendi: Following Rakesh Wadhawan v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, the court held that the tenant is strictly bound to pay or tender the provisionally assessed rent on the first date of hearing after the assessment order. Default in payment on the stipulated date leaves no jurisdiction for the Rent Controller to extend the time, and an order of eviction must follow.
Result: Revision petition dismissed.
Challenge in the present revision petition is to the orders dated 15.05.2018 and 21.08.2018 passed by learned Rent Controller as well as judgment dated 19.11.2018 passed by learned Appellate Authority.
The facts germane, to be noticed, are as follows:-
That, the respondent-landlord had filed the rent petition under Section 13 of The Haryana (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973, for seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the demised property, on the ground of non-payment of rent @ Rs.1000/- per month, w.e.f. 08.9.2014 to 07.05.2016 and other ground pleaded was requirement of demised premises for personal necessity.
However, in reply, though relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted by the petitioner-tenant, but however, the rent was disputed and it was asserted that the rent was Rs.600/- per month. Further also, it was denied that rent was due from 08.09.2014 Rather it was asserted to be due from 01.02.2015. The ground of bonafide necessity, as such, was also denied.
However, on 15.05.2018, the Rent Controller had assessed the rent, interest and cost and also the case was adjourned for 29.05.2018, for tendering of the rent. On, 29.05.2018, the presiding officer was on leave. The rent was not tendered and case was adjourned for 30.05.2018. On 30.05.2018, learned counsel for tenant tendered the assessed rent and requested the same to be given to the landlord. However, the landlord made a statement to the effect that the tendered amount is invalid and time barred and therefore, refused to accept the same. Thereupon, counsel for the landlord filed an application for ejectment of the tenant on the ground on non-payment of rent. Even, an application was filed by the tenant for placing on record the bank draft of Rs.12,584/-. Then, the concerned Officer, had adjourned the case for filing of the reply for 30.07.2018.
Vide order dated 21.08.2018, an application, for passing ejectment order, filed at the instance of the landlord, on account of non-compliance of order dated 15.05.2018, vide which the provisional rent was assessed, was decided by the Rent Controller and ordered eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the demised premises.
Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was filed by the tenant and the same was also dismissed by learned Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 19.11.2018.
Still not satisfied, the petitioner-tenant has filed the revision petition in hand.
In pursuance of the notice issued, the respondent made appearance through counsel.
Counsel for the parties heard.
At the very outset, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant that the rent was wrongly claimed for the period w.e.f. 08.09.2014 @ Rs.1000/- per month, whereas, the actual rent was Rs.600/- per month and furthermore, it was already paid upto 31.01.2015. However, the rent was assessed on 15.05.2018 and the case was fixed for 29.05.2018. However, on 29.05.2018, counsel for the petitioner-tenant had appeared before the Rent Controller for tendering of the rent, but it came to his notice that the presiding officer was on leave and the matter was already adjourned by the Reader of the Court for 30.05.2018, for tendering of the assessed rent. It was pleaded that Reader of the Court had apprised the counsel for the petitioner-tenant about the presiding officer to be on leave.
Furthermore, it is submitted that when the presiding officer was on leave, therefore, the case as per the provisions of Chapter I Part K (4) of the High Court Rules and Orders, the case was adjourned for the next working day. However, counsel also submits that in consonance with the proviso to Section 13 (2)(i) of the Haryana Rent Act, the tenant is required to make the payment of rent, within a period of 15 days of the first hearing on the application for ejectment and 30.05.2018 was the 15th day. Therefore, the rent could be paid. Moreover, it is also submitted that law laid down in Rakesh Wadhawan vs. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation 2002(1) RCR 515, vis-a-vis,
