2023:PHHC:150437

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

250

CR-1991-2020(O&M)

Date of Decision: 22.11.2023

Lala Mathura Prasad Trust (Regd.)

...Petitioner

Versus

Rajiv Kumar and others

...Respondents

250-A

CR-372-2022

(O&M)

Lala Mathura Prasad Trust (Regd.)

...Petitioner

Versus

Rajiv Kumar and another

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Present:

Mr. Sunil Chadha, Senior Advocate with

Ms. Devyani Sharma, Advocate and

Mr. Akshay Chadha, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Sumit Sangwan, Advocate for the respondents.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (oral)

1.

This order of mine shall dispose of above-mentioned both

civil revisions, wherein similar facts and controversy are involved. For

reference, facts are being taken from CR-1991-2020 titled as ‘Lala

Mathura Prasad Trust (Regd.) Vs. Rajiv Kumar and others’.

2.

By way of present revision petition, challenge has been

made to an order dated 28.01.2020 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Rent

Controller, Charkhi Dadri in rent petition No.14 dated 04.09.2017 titled

MANGAL SINGH

2023.12.05 11:42

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment.

-2-

250

CR-1991-2020 (O&M)

2023:PHHC:150437

250-A

as ‘Lala Mathura Prasad Trust (Regd.) Vs. Sh. Rajiv Kumar and

others’, whereby an application under Order XV Rule 5 of the CPC,

filed at the instance of petitioner-landlord (hereinafter referred to as

‘the Trust’), was dismissed.

3.

Briefly stating, claiming itself to be landlord, the petitioner

(the Trust) filed an eviction petition against respondents inter alia on

the ground of arrears of rent w.e.f. June-2016 till September-2017 @

Rs.5,000/- per month. Upon notice, the respondent-tenants filed their

written statements, disputing the rate of rent. Vide order dated

04.10.2017, the Rent Controller passed an order as regards the

assessment of provisional rent @ Rs.1,200/- per month w.e.f. June-

2016 till August-2017. The arrears as per the aforementioned order

were tendered by the respondent-tenants on the same day.

4.

Later, faced with the situation, wherein the respondent-

tenants failed to deposit the arrears of rent as regards the further period

i.e. with effect from September-2017 onwards, the petitioner-landlord

moved an application under Order XV Rule 5 of the CPC praying for

striking off their defence. The aforesaid application was filed on

02.11.2019. The prayer made therein was opposed at the instance of

respondent-tenants having filed their reply dated 06.01.2020. The

aforementioned application came to be dismissed vide order dated

28.01.2020 passed by the Rent Controller, Charkhi Dadri.

5.

Much later, in a separate but related development, the

respondent-tenants filed an application invoking Section 6-A of the

MANGAL SINGH

2023.12.05 11:42

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment.

-3-

250

CR-1991-2020 (O&M)

2023:PHHC:150437

250-A

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1979 (hereinafter

referred to as ‘1973 Act’), seeking permission to deposit of arrears of

rent upto 29 months i.e. from September-2017 till Jan-2020 @

Rs.1200/- per month along with interest @ 8% per annum. Notice of

the said application was served upon the petitioner-landlord and a

detailed reply opposing the prayer made in the said application was

filed. At the first instance the Rent Controller-cum-Additional Civil

Judge (Sr. Divn.), Charkhi Dadri, passed an order dated 17.02.2020,

which is reproduced hereunder:-

“Fresh power of attorney is filed on behalf of

respondent by learned counsel Shri Satyavan Kudawal.

Further, reply to the application is also filed. At this stage, the

present application is objected on the ground that a separate

eviction petition is pending between both the parties,