Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shalender vs Shri Vaish Aggarwal Sabha, Palwal on 12 December, 2023
Author: Karamjit Singh
Bench: Karamjit Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159875
CR-6506-2023 (O&M) [1] 2023:PHHC:159875
132
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR-6506-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision: 12.12.2023
Shalender ...Petitioner
Versus
Shri Vaish Aggarwal Sabha, Palwal ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
****
KARAMJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. The present revision petition has been filed by petitioner/tenant
against the order dated 04.05.2023 passed by Rent Controller, Palwal
whereby Rent Petition No.12 of 2022 titled Shri Vaish Aggarwal Sabha
Palwal Vs. Shalender was allowed on account of non deposit of provisional
rent as assessed by the Rent Controller vide order dated 19.04.2023 and
order dated 05.09.2023 whereby appeal filed by the petitioner against order
dated 04.05.2023 has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Palwal.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent/landlord filed
Eviction Petition against the petitioner/tenant, seeking his eviction from the
demised premises on the ground of non-payment of rent. The Eviction
Petition was contested by the petitioner. The Rent Controller assessed the
provisional rent of the demised premises vide order dated 19.04.2023 and
the petitioner was directed to make payment of said provisional rent by
04.05.2023. On the date fixed i.e. 04.05.2023, the petitioner failed to deposit
the provisional rent as was assessed by the Rent Controller vide order dated
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159875
CR-6506-2023 (O&M) [2] 2023:PHHC:159875
19.04.2023. Consequently, the Rent Controller passed eviction order against
the petitioner and gave him 3 months time to vacate the demised premises
vide impugned order dated 04.05.2023. The petitioner being aggrieved by
the said order filed an appeal. The appellate authority dismissed the said
appeal vide order dated 05.09.2023 while placing reliance upon the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan Vs. M/s
Jagdamba International Corporation 2002 (5) SCC 440 and decision of
this Court in CR No.3577 of 2006 Rajan @ Raj Kumar Vs. Rakesh Kumar
decided on 07.01.2010.
3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present revision
petition.
4. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the Rent Controller
assessed provisional rent of the demised premises vide order dated
19.04.2023 and adjourned the eviction petition to 04.05.2023 with direction
to make payment of the provisionally assessed rent by that date. It is further
contended that on 04.05.2023 Keshav Dev Bhardwaj, Advocate who was
member of District Bar Association, Palwal died and the District Bar
Association resolved that prayer meeting will be held at 01:30 PM and
thereafter, the work in the Court would remain suspended as the last rites of
the deceased advocate were to be performed in the evening on the same day
i.e. 04.05.2023. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that as on
04.05.2023 the judicial work was suspended by the local Bar, the petitioner
failed to tender the aforesaid provisional rent on that day in the Court. That
oral request was also made to the Court of Rent Controller to adjourn the
case to some other date. That however, the genuine request made by the
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159875
CR-6506-2023 (O&M) [3] 2023:PHHC:159875
counsel for the petitioner was declined and the said Court passed impugned
eviction order dated 04.05.2023. The counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the Rent Controller should have extended the time for payment
of provisional rent as assessed vide order dated 19.04.2023, while taking
into consideration the genuine difficulty of the petitioner because no one was
allowed to appear in the Court, as lawyers resorted to strike on that day. The
counsel for the petitioner further submits that the appeal filed by the
petitioner against order dated 04.05.2023 was also dismissed by the
appellate authority, without any application of mind. The counsel for the
petitioner further submits that on 04.05.2023, the petitioner was having
requisite amount to make payment of the provisional rent as assessed by the
Rent Controller. That however, the petitioner/his counsel was unable to
pay/tender the said amount, as no one was allowed to appear in the Courts as
the lawyers were on strike on that date. That due to said practical difficulty,
the petitioner failed to tender the arrears of provisional rent within stipulated
period. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is
always ready to pay/tender the arrears of provisional rent. That even during
the pendency of the present revision petition, petitioner was ready with
demand draft worth Rs.7,55,920/- to make the payment of aforesaid amount
in compliance of order dated 19.04.2023. It is further contended that both the
impugned order are illegal and deserve to be set aside.
5. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the
petitioner.
6. Admittedly, the Rent Controller assessed the provisional rent of
demised premises @ rate of Rs.13,800/- per month vide order dated
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159875
CR-6506-2023 (O&M) [4] 2023:PHHC:159875
19.04.2023 and gave direction to the petitioner to tender the provisionally
assessed rent by 04.05.2023. The petitioner failed to make payment of the
provisionally assessed rent by the date fixed i.e. 04.05.2023. The plea of the
petitioner is that he was ready with the said arrears of provisional rent but
failed to tender the same in the Court concerned as on 04.05.2023 the local
Bar of Palwal was on strike. The counsel for the petitioner has placed on
record resolution Annexure P-3 passed by District Bar Association, Palwal,
in order to establish that on 04.05.2023 the local Bar of Palwal observed
strike. In case, the advocates were on strike on the date fixed, the petitioner
could have appeared in person to tender the said arrears of provisional rent
in the Court concerned. Further, no document in the shape of
cheque/demand draft dated 04.05.2023 or of some earlier date is produced
by the petitioner to show that the petitioner was ready with the amount to
pay arrears of provisional rent on the stipulated date i.e. 04.05.2023. The
copy of the demand draft which was produced in this revision petition is
dated 17.11.2023 that is subsequent to the date fixed (04.05.2023). The said
demand draft dated 17.11.2023 is of no help to the petitioner, it being issued
subsequent to the stipulated date i.e. 04.05.2023.
7. Now the issue arises as to whether the Rent Controller or the
appellate authority was having any jurisdiction to extend the time for
payment/tender of arrears of provisional rent in the light of the
circumstances as are discussed above.
8. As per the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra) the Rent Controller after affording the
parties an opportunity of hearing, is to pass a order regarding assessment of
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159875
CR-6506-2023 (O&M) [5] 2023:PHHC:159875
provisional rent and then to afford the tenant an opportunity of making
payment or tender. On failure of the tenant to comply with the aforesaid
direction, an order for eviction shall follow. The division Bench of this
Court in Rajan @ Raj Kumar's case (supra) has also held that in case of
default by the tenant to pay/tender on first date of hearing after the
determination of provisional rent and other ancillary expenses by the Rent
Controller, the eviction order has to follow and the time given by the Rent
Controller to pay/tender the arrears of provisional rent cannot be extended.
Further the plea taken by the petitioner that he failed to pay/tender the
provisional rent due to lawyers strike is not tenable. The Hon'ble Apex
Court has time and again reiterated that lawyers have no right to go on strike
or give a call for boycott. In this regard reference is made to case of Ex.
Capt. Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 45.
9. From the perusal of order dated 04.05.2023, it is apparent that
the counsel for tenant appeared in the eviction petition on that date and made
prayer to the Court of Rent Controller to extend the time for payment/tender
of provisional rent as the tenant was not able to tender the said rent on that
date. While considering the said request, the tenant was given time to make
payment of provisional rent up to 04:30 PM on that very day. However,
tenant failed to pay/tender the provisional rent even by 04:30 PM on
04.05.2023 and resultantly, eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller
in the light of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakesh
Wadhawan's case (supra).
10. Further in the present case, there is nothing to show that even
the litigants were not allowed to enter the Court premises on 04.05.2023. So,
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159875
CR-6506-2023 (O&M) [6] 2023:PHHC:159875
the petitioner could have appeared in the Court concerned personally to
pay/tender the provisional rent on that date. However, there is nothing on the
record to show that the petitioner made any efforts to do so to show his
bonafide. Furthermore, the Rent Act is a Complete Code in itself and the
Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to condone such like delay in exercise of
power under the Limitation Act.
9. Considering the totality of circumstances, I am of the view that
there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 04.05.2023
passed by the Rent Controller and order dated 05.09.2023 passed by the
Appellate Court.
10. Consequently, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed
being devoid of merits.
11. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
12.12.2023 (KARAMJIT SINGH)
Yogesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159875
6 of 6
