IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Reserve: 01.09.2025 Date of Decision: 09.10.2025 HUMA MIRZA ......Petitioner Vs SAVITA ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate and Mr. Ankit Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Sahni, Advocate with Mr. Santosh Yadav, Advocate or the respondent.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

[1]. By way of present revision petition, challenge has been laid to the orders dated 12.03.2014 and 24.04.2014 passed by the Authorities below, whereby ejectment has been ordered against the petitioner-tenant on account of non-

payment of arrears of rent.

[2]. Briefly stating, the respondent-landlord preferred an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the 1973 Act’) against the petitioner while claiming herself to be the owner/landlord of Flat No.206, Second Floor in Celebrity Suits, Palam Vihar, Gurgaon (now Gurugram) (for short ‘the demised premises). As per the pleadings, the demised premises was leased out in favour of petitioner w.e.f. 10.03.2009 for a period of 11 months i.e. 09.02.2010 at the monthly rent of Rs.11,000/-. The ejectment was sought on the ground that the petitioner had failed to pay the arrears of rent.

[3]. Upon notice, petitioner/tenant appeared. Thereafter, on 19.02.2014 provisional assessment of rent as well as interest and costs was made by the learned Rent Controller as Rs.45,233/- (Rs.11000 x 4 = Rs.44,000/- rent, Rs.733/- interest and Rs.500/- cost) and the ejectment petition was adjourned to 06.03.2014. Later, on account of rent been not tendered by the petitioner-tenant, the proceedings were adjourned to 12.03.2014 for tendering of rent. However, the petitioner again failed to tender the amount of provisional rent assessed by the learned Rent Controller on 19.02.2014 and an order of ejectment was passed against the petitioner/tenant in terms of first proviso to Section 13(2)(i) of the 1973 Act on 12.03.2014.

[4]. Aggrieved against the order of ejectment passed by the learned Rent Controller on 12.03.2014, the petitioner-tenant preferred First Appeal. However the same came to be dismissed vide decision dated 24.04.2014 passed by the Appellate Authority, Gurugram. Hence the present revision petition.

[5]. Impugning the eviction orders passed by the Authorities below, learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner-tenant submitted that the provisional assessment of rent in the present case was made by the learned Rent Controller on 19.02.2014 and the matter was adjourned to 06.03.2014; which was thus to be treated as the “first date of hearing” for the purposes of proviso to Section 13(2)(i) of the 1973 Act and accordingly the petitioner was required to be afforded 15 days time thereafter for tendering of the provisionally assessed rent/interest and cost.

[5.1]. Learned Senior counsel further contended that on 06.03.2014, the ejectment proceedings were adjourned to 12.03.2014, by the said date on account of non-payment of rent provisionally assessed, the order of ejectment was passed against the petitioner-tenant. Learned Senior counsel emphasized that from 06.03.2014 which was to be termed as “first date” of hearing, 15 days period as stipulated under proviso to Section 13(2)(i) of the 1973 Act was to expire on 21.03.2014 and, therefore, the order of eviction passed against the petitioner on 12.03.2014 was illegal and uncalled for. In support of above, reliance was placed upon the decision made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of ‘Rakesh Wadhawan vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation’ reported as “2002 AIR Supreme Court

2004”. Relevant paragraphs nos.25 and 30 therefrom are extracted hereunder:-

“25. “What follows from the abovesaid discussion is that the proviso to clause (i) of sub-section (2) of Section 13 must be read as obliging the Controller to assess, by means of passing an order, the