Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Amrita Nand vs Smt. Shashi Datta Sardana on 27 February, 2012
Author: G.S.Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S.Sandhawalia
CR No.1239 of 2012 (O&M) -1-
****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1239 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.2.2012 Smt. Amrita Nand ....Petitioner Vs. Smt. Shashi Datta Sardana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr. R.P.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. H.N.Mehtani, Advocate for the Caveator/respondent.
***** G. S. SANDHAWALIA, J, (Oral).
C.M. No. 5174-CII of 2012 Prayer made in the application is for grant of exemption from filing the certified copies of Annexures P-1 and P-2.
In view of the averments made in the application, which are supported by affidavit, the Civil Misc. Application is allowed. C.R. No. 1239 of 2012
1. The petitioner-tenant is challenging the order dated 18.2.2012 whereby the Rent Controller had dismissed the objections and issued warrants of possession returnable on 10.3.2012 on the ground that there has been non tendering of the rent which was assessed on 4.4.2011. The premises in question are the first floor of House No.334, Sector 2, Panchkula. The ejectment application was filed by the respondent-landlady on the ground of non payment of rent and bonafide need. The rent of the CR No.1239 of 2012 (O&M) -2- **** premises in question was assessed to the tune of Rs.35020/- for the period December, 2010 to February, 2011 at the rate of 13,000/- per month. The rent was to be tendered on 16.4.2011 but the Court was on leave on that day and the case was adjourned to 22.4.2011. On the said date, petitioner- tenant did not appear before the Court and was proceeded against exparte and accordingly, exparte order of ejectment was passed on 25.4.2011 by the Rent Controller, Panchkula after placing reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Rajan alias Raj Kumar Vs. Rakesh Kumar 2010(1) Haryana Law Reporter 264. Thereafter, an execution petition came to be filed by the landlady on 4.6.2011 in which objections were filed by the tenant on the ground that an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. was pending for 27.3.2011 and, therefore, the tenant would be prejudiced if the eviction is ordered during the pendency of the proceedings for setting aside exparte order. Reliance was placed upon Rajendra Singh Bhandari Vs. Harpreet Singh 2008 AIR (Raj) 164. Accordingly, the impugned order was passed whereby objections have been dismissed and the warrants of possession have been issued. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Rent Controller was in error and should have given an opportunity to deposit the rent which had been assessed and even now the tenant is willing to deposit the rent. Reliance has been placed upon Mool Chand Yadav and another Vs. Raza Buland Sugar Company Limited, Rampur and others 1982 (3) SCC 484 and Mahesh Yadav and another Vs. Rajeshwar Singh and others 2009 AIR (SC) 1064 to contend that since the application for setting aside exparte judgment and decree was still pending, therefore, the tenant will be gravely prejudiced in case eviction order is given effect to. Reliance has also been CR No.1239 of 2012 (O&M) -3- **** placed upon the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Rajendra Singh Bhandari's case (supra) which was pressed into action before the Executing Court.
2. The submissions made by the petitioner are without any basis. It is a patent case where the tenant is wanting to retain possession without paying a penny. The facts show that the rent was assessed on 4.4.2011, the rent deed was dated 24.2.2010 and arrears started from December, 2010 till February, 2011. No effort was made to file an application before the Rent Controller to deposit the amount as assessed which had arisen vide order dated 4.4.2011. The tenant was very well aware that she was required to pay the rent which was due as per the rent deed. Inspite of that she kept the rent back. The execution was filed way back on 4.6.2011. Still the tenant had made no effort to file application for deposit of rent. The judgments which had been relied upon by the petitioner are all under the Code of Civil Procedure. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan Vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, AIR 2002 SC 2004 and Vinod Kumar Vs. Prem Lata 2003 HRR 699 and followed subsequently by the Division Bench of this Court in Rajan alias Raj Kumar Vs. Rakesh Kumar 2010(2) PLR 201, it has been categorically laid down that if the tenant does not comply with the order of deposit of rent, no further proceedings are to be gone into and ejectment is to follow. Thus, keeping in view the settled principles which have been noticed in Bachan Singh Vs. Yadwinder Kumar 2010 (2) HLR 35 which has placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of Rajan alias Raj Kumar's case (Supra), Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra), Madan Lal and another Vs. Baldev Raj (2004-2) P.L.R. 834, no fault can be found CR No.1239 of 2012 (O&M) -4- **** with the order passed by the Rent Controller and no indulgence can be given to such a tenant who wishes to hold the property without payment of rent which has been assessed by the Rent Controller almost one year prior.
The revision petition is dismissed accordingly.
(G.S.SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE 27.2.2012 Pka