Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashok Kumar vs Jagdish Singh And Another on 31 January, 2014
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
CR No.488 of 2013 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(233)
CR No.488 of 2013
Date of decision: 31.01.2014.
Ashok Kumar
......Petitioner
Versus
Jagdish Singh and another
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. V.K. Sandhir, Advocate for the petitioner.
****
SABINA, J.
Respondent No.1 had filed petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 against the petitioner and respondent No.2 seeking their ejectment from the premises in question on the ground of non-payment of rent and that the value of the property in question had been materially impaired.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.
During the pendency of the ejectment petition, provisional rent was assessed by the Rent Controller vide order dated 30.09.2010. However, petitioner failed to tender the provisional rent on the date fixed and consequently, ejectment of the petitioner was ordered by the Rent Controller vide order dated 25.11.2010. Appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order Sandeep Sethi 2014.02.03 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.488 of 2013 -2- was dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 15.05.2012.
Since the petitioner had failed to deposit the provisional rent as assessed by the Rent Controller within the stipulated period, petitioner was liable to be ejected. It has been held in the decision of the Apex Court in Rakesh Wadhawan vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation 2002 (1) RCR (Rent) 514, as under:-
"4. On the failure of the tenant to comply, nothing remains to be done and an order for eviction shall 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."
In view of the above decision, the Courts below have rightly ordered the ejectment of the petitioner. During the course of arguments, it has further transpired that possession had already been taken by respondent No.1 in execution proceedings.
Hence, no ground for interference is made out. Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE January 31, 2014.
sandeep sethi Sandeep Sethi 2014.02.03 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document