Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pradeep Kumar vs Madan Lal And Another on 16 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005957
255 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR-1667-2022
DECIDED ON: 16.01.2025
PRADEEP KUMAR
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
MADAN LAL AND ANOTHER
....RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL.
Present: Mr. Pawan Kumar, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Vidushi Kumar, Advocate and
Mrs. Seema Rani, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Gagandeep Kaur, Advocate
for the respondents.
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)
The present revision petition is directed against the order dated
15.11.2021 (Annexure P-1)
P vide which the application filed by the present
petitioner for passing an order of eviction on account of non
non-deposit of the
rent assessed vide order dated 15.07.2021 was dismissed and the application
filed by the respondents-tenants
respondents tenants for depositing the rent was allowed.
2. The facts, as emanating from the revision petition and as have
been stated by learned counsel for
f the parties are that an eviction petition
was filed by the petitioner-landlord
petitioner landlord (Pradeep Kumar) against the
respondents-tenants
tenants under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent
Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the
' Rent Act'). Vide order dated 15.07.2021
(Annexure P-2),
2), provisional assessment of rent was done. A sum of
Rs.12,600/- was determined as arrears of rent, costs were assessed at
Rs.1,000/- and interest @ 6% per annum was also ordered to be paid on the
1 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005957
outstanding amount. The matter was then fixed ffor 11.08.2021 for tender of
rent. On 11.08.2021, a sum of Rs.10,000/
Rs.10,000/- was deposited by the
respondents-tenants
tenants upon which an objection was raised by the
petitioner-landlord
landlord that the rent was short, though the said amount was
accepted under protest. The case of the petitioner is that on account of short
tender of rent, eviction should have been ordered by the Rent Controller
keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Supreme Court of India in
the case of 'Rakesh
Rakesh Wadhawan Vs. M/s Jagdamba Indus
Industrial
Corporation',, 2002 AIR (Supreme Court) 2004
2004.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
once the amount of rent tendered was short, then
then, in accordance with the
judgment of the Supreme
Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Rakesh Wadhawan
Vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation' (supra) and the judgments
passed by this Court in the case of 'M/s
M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. and another Vs.
M/s Shakti Floor Roller Mills',
Mills , 2022 (2) R.C.R. (Rent) 636 and 'Jasbir
Singh Vs. Gurmej Singh',
Singh , 2022 (2) R.C.R. (Rent) 634
634, the only option with
the Rent Controller was to order eviction of the respondents
respondents-tenants. Notice
of the Court has been drawn to the application dated 11.08.2021
(Annexure P-3)
3) moved by
b the petitioner-landlord
landlord on 11.08.2021 itself for
passing of eviction orders and the application dated 11.08.2021
(Annexure P-4)
4) moved by the respondents-tenants
respondents tenants for deposit of rent. He
submits that the application moved by the respondents
respondents-tenants would show
that the amount was again not tendered and it was only stated that the
applicant was ready to pay the remaining amount of Rs.4,356/- out of the
2 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005957
total amount of Rs.14356/-
Rs.14356/ after deducting Rs.10,000/
Rs.10,000/- which had already
been paid. He submits that the
the application itself shows that in fact there was
no intention to pay and, therefore, the eviction order should have been
passed.
5. Learned Senior counsel has also referred to the order dated
12.01.2022 (Annexure P-9)
P wherein again learned counsel for the
respondents-tenants
tenants had stated that he intended to pay a sum of Rs.7,002/-.
Learned Senior counsel submits that mere intention to pay would not be
sufficient and there should have been actual tender of the rent assessed.
Apart from the judgments referred to above, reliance has also been placed
upon the judgments passed
passed by this Court in the case of 'Ajit Singh Vs.
Harjit Kaur', 2017 (3) RCR (Civil) 882 (Annexure P
P-10) and 'Ashok
Kumar Vs. Gurdev Singh',
Singh , 2020 (1) RCR (Rent) 173 (Annexure P-11).
6. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondents
has submitted
mitted that the error occurred on account of the exact amount not
having been assessed by the Rent Controller and upon payment of
Rs.10,000/- on 11.08.2021,
11.08.2021 which was the first date after the assessment of
provisional rent, the respondents-tenants,
respondents tenants, upon re
realizing that the amount
tendered was short, moved an application dated 11.08.2021 (Annexure P-4)
itself to deposit the rent assessed by the Court. Notice of the Court has been
drawn to the order dated 11.08.2021 (Annexure P
P-6) passed by the Rent
Controller vide which the matter was adjourned to 13.09.2021 for filing of
replies to the application filed by both sides. She submits that under the
circumstances, the intention of the respondents-tenants
respondents tenants was not to violate the
order passed by the Rent Controller but
but on account of miscalculation, the
3 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005957
complete rent could not be tendered. Learned counsel has also submitted that
in such a case, the tenant should not suffer. Reference has been made to the
judgments passed by this Court in the case of 'Gurpreet
'Gurpreet Singh and Another
Vs. Brijinder Bhardwaj and Another',
Another , 2011 (2) RCR (Civil) 770 and
'Kailash
Kailash Chandra Kaushik Vs. Kamaljeet Rangi
Rangi', 2012 (67) RCR (Civil)
720.
7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties and with their assistance,
assistance have
ve perused the paper book.
8. The provisional assessment of rent was done vide order dated
15.07.2021 (Annexure P-2).
P . The rent was assessed at Rs.2
Rs.2,800/- per annum
from 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2021, the total of which came to Rs.12,600/
Rs.12,600/-.
Apart from this, costs of Rs.1,000/- were assessed and it was ordered that the
amount shall be paid alongwith interest @ 6% per annum. The case was then
fixed for 11.08.2021 for tender of rent. On 11.08.2021, a sum of Rs.10,000/
Rs.10,000/-
was tendered by the respondents-tenants.
respondents Thee same was accepted by the
petitioner-landlord
landlord under protest, the same being short. At that very point,
the respondents-tenants
respondents offered to pay the remaining amount which was
opposed by learned counsel for the petitioner. The matter was then
adjourned to thee post lunch session during which an application was moved
by the respondent for depositing the balance amount and an application was
also moved by the petitioner for passing of an order of eviction
eviction. The
following order was passed:-
passed
"File taken up again in after lunch session as
application is moved by Ld counsel for the respondent for
depositing the rest of the amount which was assessed vide
order dated 15.07.2021. However, on the other hand Ld.
counsel for the petitioner has moved an application for passing
4 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005957
an order of eviction on account of default committed by the
respondent. The copies of the same have been supplied to the
opposite counsel for parties. Now, the case stands adjourned to
13.09.2021 for filing reply to the opposing ap
application."
9. Eventually vide the impugned order, the applications were
Eventually,
disposed of. It was held that there was no intention of the
respondents-tenants
tenants to not pay the amount and in fact the intention was to
pay the amount immediately. Learned
Learned Rent Controller came to the
conclusion that under such circumstances, the grant of permission to the
respondents-tenants
tenants to pay the balance amount would not amount to
extending the period and there would be no violation of law;
"From all the judgments cited by learned counsel for
the applicant and learned counsel for the respondent it is clear
that time for payment of provisional rent assessed cannot be
extended and the payment of provisional rent assessed has to
be made on the very first date of hearing after the passing of
order of provisional assessment. It is also settled position that
in case of failure of the tenant to pay the rent assessed by the
Court eviction order should follow. However, the facts of the
present case shows a bona fide intention on the part of the
respondent that he was always ready and willing to pay the
entire rent assessed on the very first date of hearing after
passing of the order of provisional assessment of the rent. The
respondent showed his intention to pay the remaining rent
immediately after learned counsel for the applicant accepted
the rent under protest being short and invalid. So when on the
same date i.e. the first date of hearing after passing of order
assessing provisional rent the respondent showed his intention
and was ready with the remaining amount to make good
deficiency, it would certainly not amount to extending the
period of limitation and the payment if made would be
considered to have been made on the very first date of hearing
after passing of the order of provisional assessment of rent.
Moreover, the letter and spirit of the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court passed in Rakesh Vadawan case is to punish
5 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005957
the tenant in case of his wilful default by passing an eviction
order on non-payment
payment of provis
provisional rent on date fixed and not
to punish the tenant who is ready to make payment but fails to
comply with orders due to a mere mistake. So this Court is of
the considered opinion that when the respondent was ready
and willing to make the payment on the vvery first date of
hearing it will not amount to extending the period and in such
a situation no order of eviction can be passed. Hence, both the
applications are decided accordingly. On request of learned
counsel for the applicant, case stands adjourned to 12.01.2022,
for filing re-joinder."
10. In the considered opinion of this Court, no illegality was
committed by the Rent Controller in deciding the applications and holding
that by permitting the respondents-tenants
respondents tenants to tender the rent, there would be
no extension in the limitation for tendering the same. Eventually, the rent is
stated to have been paid, though without prejudice to the rights of the
present petitioner. I do not, therefore, find any illegality in the said order
warranting interference in Revisional
evisional jurisdiction.
11. I have gone through the judgments relied upon by learned
counsel for the parties. The dictum laid down in the case of 'Rakesh
Wadhawan Vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation' (supra) is very
clear. The provisional rent has to be paid on the first date of hearing which
would mean the date following after the assessment of provisional rent. It
says that if the said rent is not tendered, eviction would follow. At the same
time, it was also held by the Apex Court that in terms of the proviso of
Section 13 (2) (i)
( ) of the Rent Act, there was an obligation upon the Rent
Controller to make an assessment of:-
of
i. arrears of rent.
ii. interest on such arrears.
6 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005957
iii. cost of the application.
The Rent Controller was then obligated to quantify the amount which the
tenant must pay on the first date of hearing. In the present case, no such
quantification of the rent due to be paid by the respondents
respondents-tenants was done
as a result of which,
which it appears, the confusion occurred. The judgments in the
case of 'Jasbir
Jasbir Singh Vs. Gurmej Singh'
Singh (supra) and M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd.
and another Vs. M/s Shakti Floor Roller Mills
Mills' (supra) as also in the case
of 'Ajit Singh Vs. Harjit Kaur' (supra) and 'Ashok Kumar Vs. Gurdev
Singh' (supra) would also not come to the aid of the petitioner be
because these
judgments reiterate the basic ratio of law that if the rent is not tendered on
the date fixed or if the same is contested, eviction would follow whereas in
the present case, there was no deliberate attempt to not pay the amount. In
fact, the judgment in the case of 'Gurpreet
Gurpreet Singh and Another Vs. Brijinder
Bhardwaj and Another'
Another (supra) would come to the aid of the respondents
respondents-
tenants as in that case also, the exact amount of arrears of rent had not been
assessed.
ed. What was assessed was rent @ Rs.11,000/
Rs.11,000/- per month w.e.f.
11.01.2007 till April 2010, costs of Rs.500/- and interest @ 6%. On the first
date fixed,, a sum of Rs.3,32,000/-
Rs.3,32,000/ was tendered by the respondents
respondents-tenants
as provisional rent. The same was accepted
accepted by learned counsel representing
the landlord under protest on the ground that the same was short. On the
same day, a counter claim was filed by the tenants and two days thereafter,
an application was filed for tendering
tender more amount which had been
inadvertently been left out. The application was contested by the landlords
and the same was dismissed by the Rent Controller. An application was filed
by the landlords for ejectments
ejectment on the ground of non tender of rent which
7 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005957
wass allowed by the Rent Controller.
Controller. The matter reached this Court. The
Co-ordinate
ordinate Bench, not only allowed the revision petition but also issued
directions to Rent Controllers in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union
Territory Chandigarh to make the assessment of rent as per law. It was held
that the act of the Court should harm none. In the considered opinion of this
Court, the present matter is squarely covered by the ratio of law laid down in
the said judgment;
"11.
11. The relationship of landlord and tenant between
the parties is not denied. The landlor
landlords claimed arrears of rent
w.e.f. 11.1.2007 to 06.8.2007 at the rate of Rs. 9000/
9000/- per month
and w.e.f 07.8.2007 at the rate of Rs. 20,000/
20,000/- per month. The
tenants, however, claimed to have paid the rent at the rate of
Rs. 5000/- per month up to 31.3.2008. The learned Rent
Controller, however, fixed the provisional rent at the rate of
Rs. 11,000/- per month w.e.f. 11.1.2007 till the month of passing
of the order up to April,2010, with cost of Rs. 500/
500/- and interest
at the rate of 6% per annum.
12. At this stage, it would be worthwhile to notice as to
whether is it not the duty of the Rent Controller to assess the
exact amount of arrears of rent and also calculate the interest
accrued thereon at the rate of 6% per annum as provided
under Section 13 (2) (i) (proviso)
proviso) of the Act. To my mind, the
Rent Controller is obliged under the Act to assess the exact
amount of arrears of rent, exact amount of interest accrued
thereon, cost of the petition and the exact total amount which is
liable to be paid by the tenants as the provisional rent on the
date fixed by the Court. Since consequence of non tendering
the exact amount of provisional rent on the date fixed is very
drastic, therefore, responsibility of the Rent Controller equally
very high and if there is any mista
mistake in the calculation of the
amount, if it is not properly assessed by the Rent Controller,
the tenant cannot be held liable on the principle that "Act of
the Court should do no harm to the litigant". In this regard,
decision of the Supreme Court in Jang S
Singh's Case (Supra)
needs a reference. In the said case, a preemption decree was
8 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005957
drawn and the decree holder was directed to deposit Rs. 5951/
5951/-
less Rs. 1000/- already deposited by him by a certain date and
on failure, the suit was to stand dismissed. The decree holder
approached the Court before the date for making the deposit
and the Court Clerk prepared a bank challan for Rs. 4950/
4950/-
instead of Rs. 4951/- and the decree holder made the deposit by
Rs. one less. After the deposit, the decree holder obtained
possession and the judgment debtor applied for release of the
amount lying with the Court. It was found that the deposit was
short by Rs. one.
13. The judgment debtor then applied for dismissal of
the suit filed by the pre-emptor,
emptor, which was allowed on tthe
ground that the Court had no power to extend time fixed in the
decree for payment of the price and failure of the pre
pre-emptor
of depositing of exact amount had incurred dismissal of the
suit. Consequently, earlier order passed in favour of the decree
holder
der was reversed and possession was restored back to the
judgment debtor. Appeal filed by the decree holder was
allowed by the learned first Appellate Court, but the same was
reversed by the High Court.
14. The matter was then taken to the Supreme Court,
where the appeal of the decree holder was allowed by holding
that the time can be extended to make the payment of the pre
pre-
emption money, because for the error of the Court, the litigant
should not suffer. Relevant observation of the Supreme Court
is as under :-
"It is no doubt true that a litigant must be vigilant and take care
but where a litigant goes to Court and asks for the assistance of
the Court so that his obligations under a decree might be fulfilled
by him strictly, it is incumbent on the Court, if it does not leave
the litigant to his own devices, to ensure that the correct
information is furnished. If the Court in supplying the
information makes a mistake, the responsibility of the litigant,
though it does not altogether cease, is at least shar
shared by the
Court. If the litigant acts on the faith of that information, the
Courts cannot hold him responsible for a mistake which it itself
caused. There is no higher principle for the guidance of the
Court than the one that no act of Courts should harm a litigant
and it is the bounden duty of Courts to see that if a person is
9 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005957
harmed by a mistake of the Court he should be restored to the
position he would have occupied but for that mistake. This is
aptly summed up in the maxim: "Actus curiae neminem
gravabit".
15. In the case of Umesh Chand Gandhi (Supra), there
was a default in deposit of arrears of rent due to bonafide
mistake of calculation. It was held that no ejectment could be
ordered as there was a bonafide mistake in computation of
arrears -Maxim "de minim is not curat lex" was applied. In
the case of Vinod Kumar (Supra), it was held that in terms of
Section 13 (2) (i) of the Act, it is the duty of the Rent Controller
to assess interim rent, interest and cost to be deposited by the
tenant on the first
irst date of hearing. Almost a similar
controversy came up before this Court in the case of Lambher
Singh (Supra) in which the landlord had come in revision. In
that case also, the tenant skipped one year rent at the time of
calculation. He filed the application
cation for making deficiency good
and simultaneously the landlord also filed an application in
order to seek ejectment. The said application of the tenant was
allowed by the Rent Controller. In the said application also, the
provisional rent was assessed b
by the Rent Controller for a
particular period at a particular rate of rent without assessing
the exact amount of rent and interest accrued thereon, as a
result of which, the tenant skipped a period of 12 months in
assessing the arrears of rent, but as soon as he realised his
error of calculation, an application was filed for making the
deficiency good and the said prayer was accepted by the Rent
Controller unlike the present case in which the said prayer has
been declined and the application of the landlord for passing
an order of ejectment on that ground has been allowed. This
Court in the case of Lambher Singh (Supra) discussed Rakesh
Wadhawan (Supra) in extenso and also a Division Bench of this
Court passed in 2010(1) RCR (Rent) 386: Civil Revision No.
77 of 2006 titled as Rajan alias Raj Kumar v. Rakesh
Kumar, decided on January 07, 2010 and observed that the
order of the Rent Controller granting permission to make
deficiency of the rent tendered short to be made good, does not
suffer from any infirmity.
10 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005957
15A. On the other hand, the judgments relied upon by
the learned counsel for the respondents/landlords in the case of
Madan Lal and another (Supra) and Nasiruddin and others
(Supra) are altogether on different facts because in the case of
Madan Lal and another (Supra), provisional rent was assessed
in accordance with law, namely exact amount of arrears,
amount of interest and exact amount payable was notified by
the Rent controller to the tenants to be paid on a particular
date, but the tenants did not pay at all rather they challenged
the order of assessment of provisional rent first. Consequently,
the Rent Controller passed the order of ejectment. This is not
the position in the present case because in this case, due to
error of calculation, entire pay
payment was not tendered due to
the error on the part of the Court. In the case of Nasiruddin
and others (Supra), the provisional rent was not deposited on
the date fixed and an application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, the Act) was filed for extension
of time. It was held by the Supreme Court that application
under Section 5 of the Act, was not maintainable and time
cannot be extended. Thus, to my mind, both the judgments
relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents/landlords
are
re not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present
case.
16. Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the
present revision petition is found to be meritorious and the
same is hereby allowed.
17. Before parting, it is pertinent to mentio
mention that a lot of
time and energy of the Courts are being wasted in such type of
litigation which is generated because of simple mistake on the
part of the Rent Controllers, who fail to discharge their duties
of assessing the provisional rent in accordance w
with law.
18. Hence, a direction is also given to all the Rent
Controllers in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union
Territory, Chandigarh, to assess the provisional rent by
multiplying the rate of rent with the period for which it is due,
calculate the exact amount of interest @ 6% and after
assessing the cost, give an accurate amount to the tenant which
he is supposed to tender on the date fixed by the Court so that
this kind of situation may not arise in future because this
11 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005957
Court has experienced that R
Rent Controllers are neither
calculating the amount of interest nor are giving the accurate
amount.
In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, I do not
find any merit in the present revision petition and the same is accordingly
dismissed.
(VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
16.01.2025 JUDGE
Prince Chawla
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
12 of 12
