SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 80152

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
TARSEM LAL – Appellant
Versus
RAVINDER KAUR – Respondent
CR_4655_2016



##PAGE1##

CR-4655-2016 (O&M) (cid:1)(cid:2)

Sr. No.124

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CR-4655-2016 (O&M)

Date of decision: 14th May 2026

TARSEM LAL .....…Petitioner

versus

RAVINDER KAUR ........Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN

Present: Mr. Bhrigu Dutt Sharma, Advocate and

Mr. Ameesh Gautam, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Narinder S. Lucky, Advocate

for the respondent.

HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J.

1. The present Civil Revision has been filed under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 21.03.2015, passed by

the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Rent Controller, Jalandhar,

dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC

as well as the order dated 16.05.2016, passed by the learned Additional

District Judge, Jalandhar, dismissing the appeal filed by petitioner against

the order passed by the Rent Controller.

2. The respondent-landlord filed an ejectment petition under

Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for

ejectment of the petitioner from the demised premises on the ground of non-

payment of arrears of rent and on the ground that the petitioner had illegally

occupied the demised premises. Ex parte ejectment order was passed in

favour of the respondent. After the filing of the execution proceedings, the

SIMRANDEEP KAUR

2026.05.21 09:49

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

##PAGE2##

CR-4655-2016 (O&M) (cid:3)(cid:2)

petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside

the ex parte ejectment order. The said application was dismissed by the

learned Rent Controller and the same was upheld by the Appellate Court.

3. The dismissal of the appeal by the Appellate Authority had been

challenged by way of filing the present Civil Revision.

4. While issuing notice of motion, the ejectment orders passed by

the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority were stayed vide

order dated 25.07.2016, subject to the following terms and conditions:-

“xxx xxx xxx xxx

(i) The petitioner-tenant will pay/deposit the entire due rent upto

August, 2016 within two weeks.

(ii) He will keep on paying/depositing the advance rent/mesne profits

of subsequent months on or before 7th day of each month.

(iii) He will file affidavit before the Rent Controller within three

weeks giving details of entire payment of rent/mesne profits.

xxx xxx xxx xxx”

5. Vide order dated 24.07.2019, learned counsel for the petitioner

was directed to inform the Court as to whether the order dated 25.07.2016

has been complied with. Again, vide order dated 22.04.2025, the petitioner

was directed to file an affidavit regarding the compliance of the aforesaid

order dated 25.07.2016.

6. Today, Mr. Narinder S. Lucky, Advocate has put in appearance

on behalf of the respondent and filed ‘vakalatnama’, which is taken on

record.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent informs that the petitioner-

tenant has not deposited the subsequent arrears in compliance with the order

dated 25.07.2016.

SIMRANDEEP KAUR

2026.05.21 09:49

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

##PAGE3##

CR-4655-2016 (O&M) (cid:4)(cid:2)

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he

has tried to contact the petitioner but he could not have instructions, as such,

no affidavit could be filed in compliance with the order dated 22.04.2025.

9. It is evident that the order dated 25.07.2016, regarding the

deposit of mesne profits and arrears of rent, has not been complied with by

the petitioner-tenant.

10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this

Court is of the opinion that the Civil Revision is a discretionary relief. The

petition is liable to be dismissed on account of non-compliance of the

interim order passed by this Court.

11. Consequently, the present petition stands dismissed.

12. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN)

JUDGE

14th May 2026

simran

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

SIMRANDEEP KAU

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top