Jasbir Singh vs Gurmej Singh
2022 Latest Caselaw 10601 P&H

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                        116                                            CR No.3542 of 2022 (O&M)
                                                                       Date of Decision : 07.09.2022


                        Jasbir Singh                                                        ....Petitioner

                                                            VERSUS

                        Gurmej Singh                                                     ....Respondent

                        CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

                        Present :      Mr. Sarbjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                       Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the caveator-respondent.

                        ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

The present revision petition has been filed challenging the

ejectment order dated 03.01.2020 passed by the Rent Controller which order

was affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide it's order dated 21.07.2022.

The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the landlord-

respondent filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of East Punjab

Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for eviction of the tenant-petitioner on the

grounds of arrears of rent and personal bona fide necessity. The tenant-

petitioner appeared and filed his written statement taking various pleas

regarding non-maintainability of the ejectment petition and concealment of

material facts. On merits, it was stated that the tenant-petitioner was not in

arrears of rent as alleged. It was further denied that the building was required

by the landlord-respondent for his bona fide necessity. The provisional rent

was assessed by the Rent Controller on 18.11.2019 and the case was fixed

for 03.01.2020 for tendering of the rent provisionally assessed by the Rent

Controller. The said order was challenged in the CR No.8335 of 2019.

Before the matter was fixed before this Court for hearing, on 03.01.2020 the JITENDER KUMAR 2022.09.12 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Chandigarh

order of ejectment was passed by the Rent Controller since the tenant-

petitioner failed to deposit the provisional rent as assessed. It is to be noted

that the order was passed in the presence of counsel for the tenant-petitioner.

CR No.8335 of 2019 came up for hearing on 06.01.2020 wherein the

following order was passed :

"The petitioner has challenged the order dated

18.11.2019 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division)-

cum-Rent Controller, Amritsar whereby he has been

directed to make payment of rent @ Rs.2,000/- per

month w.e.f. 01.02.2011.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that

the petitioner was in arrears of rent only w.e.f.

01.04.2018 and therefore, he could not have been

fastened the liability to pay the rent w.e.f 01.02.2011.

He also contends that the interest on arrears of rent

could not have been awarded.

Heard.

The respondent (applicant therein) had filed a

petition for eviction on the basis of non-payment of rent.

He had claimed rent @ Rs.3,000/- per month. The

petitioner had taken a specific plea that the rent was

Rs.2,000/- per month but he could not place on record

any documents or receipts before the trial Court to

indicate that he had paid the arrears till 31.03.2018.

The Rent Controller has accepted the plea of the JITENDER KUMAR 2022.09.12 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Chandigarh

petitioner that the rent was Rs.2,000/- per month and

not as claimed by the landlord to Rs.3,000/- per month.

I do not find any illegality in the impugned order

which would warrant interference while exercising

revisional jurisdiction especially when the petitioner

had not substantiated through any documents or other

prima facie evidence that he had paid rent till

31.03.2018. I also do not find any merit in the

contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the

interest on arrears of rent @ 6% p.a. could not have

been awarded. The interest awarded by the Rent

Controller is reasonable and no interference is called

for in this aspect as well.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner

contends that the petitioner may be granted some more

time to make the payment of the arrears of rent as

assessed by the Rent Controller.

The petitioner shall make the payment of the

arrears of rent within one month from now and the

amount which shall be paid by the petitioner shall,

however, be subject to the adjustment, if any, at the time

of the passing of the final order.

The petition stands disposed of accordingly."

Thereafter, the tenant-petitioner challenged the order dated

03.01.2020 before the Appellate Court by filing an appeal on 28.01.2020, JITENDER KUMAR 2022.09.12 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Chandigarh

which appeal has also been dismissed vide order dated 21.07.2022. Hence,

the present revision petition.

Learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner has contended that

vide order dated 06.01.2020 passed by this Court the petitioner has been

granted one month's time to pay the amount of provisional rent as assessed

by the Rent Controller and, hence, the order of ejectment deserves to be set

aside.

Per contra, learned counsel for the landlord-respondent has

pointed out that the order of ejectment was passed on 03.01.2020 in the

presence of counsel for the tenant-petitioner. However, the tenant-petitioner

concealed the said fact from this Court and that is how order dated

06.01.2020 in CR No.8335 of 2019 came to be passed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

In the present case, the tenant-petitioner has totally misused and

abused the process of law. The ejectment order in the present case was

passed on 03.01.2020 for non-deposit of the provisional rent as assessed by

the Rent Controller. The revision petition being CR-8335-2019 challenging

the assessment of the provisional rent was listed on 06.01.2020 and was

disposed off on the same date vide order a copy whereof is appended with

the petition as Annexure P-1. A perusal of the said order reveals that there

has been total concealment of facts from this Court inasmuch as the

ejectment order dated 03.01.2020, which was passed in the presence of

counsel for the tenant-petitioner, was not brought to the notice of the Court

and when a period of one month was granted to the tenant-petitioner to make

good the payment. Since the order of ejectment was passed prior to the order JITENDER KUMAR 2022.09.12 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Chandigarh

dated 06.01.2020 and the same was not brought to the notice of this Court,

the tenant-petitioner cannot derive any benefit of the said order.

In case of Rakesh Wadhawan vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial

Corporation & Ors. [2002(1) RCR (Rent) 514] it was held as under :

"30. To sum up, our conclusions are :

1. In Section 13(2)(i) proviso, the words 'assessed by

the Controller' qualify not merely the words 'the cost of

application' but the entire preceding part of the

sentence i.e. 'the arrears of rent and interest at six per

cent per annum on such arrears together with the cost of

application'.

2. The proviso to Section 13(2)(i) of East Punjab

Urban Restriction Act, 1949 casts an obligation on the

Controller to make an assessment of (i) arrears of rent,

(ii) the interest on such arrears, and (iii) the cost of

application and then quantify by way of an interim or

provisional order the amount which the tenant must pay

or tender on the 'first date of hearing' after the passing

of such order of 'assessment' by the Controller so as to

satisfy the requirement of the proviso.

3. Of necessity, 'the date of first hearing of the

application' would mean the date falling after the date

of such order by Controller.

4. On the failure of the tenant to comply, nothing

remains to be done and an order for eviction shall JITENDER KUMAR 2022.09.12 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Chandigarh

follow. If the tenant makes compliance, the inquiry shall

continue for finally adjudicating upon the dispute as to

the arrears of rent in the light of the contending pleas

raised by the landlord and the tenant before the

Controller.

5. If the final adjudication by the Controller be at

variance with his interim or provisional order passed

under the proviso, one of the following two orders may

be made depending on the facts situation of a given

case. If the amount deposited by the tenant is found to

be in excess, the Controller may direct a refund. If on

the other hand, the amount deposited by the tenant is

found to be short or deficient, the Controller may pass a

conditional order directing tenant to place the landlord

in possession of the premises by giving a reasonable

time to the tenant for paying or tendering the deficit

amount, failing which alone he shall be liable to be

evicted. Compliance shall save him from eviction.

6. While exercising discretion for affording the tenant

an opportunity of making good the deficit, one of the

relevant factors to be taken into consideration by the

Controller would be, whether the tenant has paid or

tendered with substantial regularity the rent falling due

month by month during the pendency of the

proceedings."

JITENDER KUMAR 2022.09.12 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Chandigarh

Since the provisional rent in the present case as assessed by the

Rent Controller was not deposited on the date fixed i.e. 03.01.2020, the Rent

Controller has rightly allowed the ejectment petition and ordered eviction of

the tenant-petitioner from the demised premises.

Learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner, except for raising the

argument that this Court had given permission to deposit the amount within

a period of one month from the date of passing of the order dated 06.01.2020

and hence the ejectment order was bad, has not been able to show how the

orders passed by the Authorities below are illegal or erroneous.

In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in

the orders passed by the Authorities below. The present revision petition

being devoid of any merits is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also

stand disposed off.

Keeping in view the facts as narrated above, this Court is

constrained to impose exemplary costs of Rs.20,000/- on the tenant-

petitioner. Costs to be deposited with the Punjab and Haryana High Court

Legal Services Committee.

JITENDER KUMAR 2022.09.12 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Chandigarh