Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjit Kaur vs Rupinder Kaur & Anr on 4 November, 2009
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
Civil Revision No. 1994 of 2009. ::-1-::
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB
AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
C.R. No. 1994 of 2009. [O&M]
Date of Decision: 04th November, 2009.
Manjit Kaur Petitioner
through
Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate
Versus
Rupinder Kaur & Anr. Respondents
through Mr. Arun Palli, Sr. Advocate with Mr. KVS Kang, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This Revision Petition is directed by the tenant against the orders dated 2.4.2009 and 28.8.2008 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh. The order dated 28.8.2008 is an ex-parte conditional eviction order passed against the petitioner on the ground of non-payment of rent w.e.f April, 2005 @ Rs.4500/- per month, whereas vide the subsequent order dated 2.4.2009, her application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex-parte eviction order has been dismissed.
[2]. Much can be said about the manner in which the petitioner - tenant has opted to remain outside the Court of the Rent Controller till the eviction order was passed and thereafter moved one after the other applications before the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority. Be that as it may, the counsel for the respondent Civil Revision No. 1994 of 2009. ::-2-::
- landlord states that no rent has been paid by the petitioner - tenant since April, 2005. He further states that he has no serious objection to the setting aside of the impugned orders and to remit the matter to the Rent Controller with a direction to decide the same afresh provided that the petitioner - tenant tenders the arrears of rent as assessed by the Rent Controller without prejudice to her legal rights w.e.f. April, 2005.
[3]. I have heard counsel for the parties at some length and gone through the record. The respondent - landlord filed an eviction application in respect of the demised premises comprising two rooms, bath room and kitchen on first and second floors of residential House No. 89, Village Butrela, Sector 41-B, Chandigarh, inter-alia, averring that the same was let out to the petitioner on payment of rent of Rs.3800/- per month excluding water and electricity charges. The Rent Controller further averred that the parties had agreed to increase the rent to Rs.4500/- w.e.f. April, 2005. [4]. As may be seen from the impugned order, the petitioner - tenant was served through different modes including the substituted service. However, she did not turn up to contest the claim of the respondent. In these circumstances, the Rent Controller in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, accepted the eviction petition and passed the conditional eviction order dated 28.08.2008 thereby directing the petitioner to tender the arrears of rent w.e.f. April, 2005 @ Rs.4500/- per month within 45 days, failing which the order of eviction was to come into operation.
[5]. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority but withdrew the same. Thereafter, second appeal was filed Civil Revision No. 1994 of 2009. ::-3-::
but the same was also got dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC in which, it appears that she conceded her knowledge regarding pendency of the eviction proceedings. That application was also later on withdrawn by her. The petitioner then filed another application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC which has been finally dismissed by the Rent Controller vide the second impugned order dated 02.04.2009. [6]. Meanwhile, it is stated by counsel for the respondent - landlord, that the petitioner made third attempt of appeal before the Appellate Authority during the pendency of this revision petition but that has also been dismissed as withdrawn on 15.4.2009. [7]. Notwithstanding the above noticed negligent conduct of the petitioner - tenant, the counsel for the respondent - landlord has no objection if this Court grants yet one more opportunity to the petitioner to defend herself provided that she tenders the arrears of rent as assessed by the Rent Controller w.e.f. April, 2005. [8]. In my considered view, the petitioner can not be permitted to endlessly prolong the proceedings or enjoy the property free of cost and without payment of any rent. Suffice it to say that the petitioner's after-thought plea sought to be raised before this Court that she is occupying only half portion of the demised premises and that too on a monthly rent of Rs.1000/- only, also a seriously disputed question of fact which can be decided by the Rent Controller only on appreciation of the evidence that may be led by the parties. The respondent - landlord's plea, on the other hand is that the petitioner is in possession of the entire demised premises and Jasbir Kaur, who is stated to be in possession of the remaining half portion is none Civil Revision No. 1994 of 2009. ::-4-::
else than the real sister of the petitioner - tenant. [9]. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons noticed above, the revision petition is allowed, the impugned orders dated 2.4.2009 and 28.8.2009 are hereby set aside and as a result thereto, the application moved by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is accepted. The matter is remitted to the Rent Controller, Chandigarh to decide the same afresh and in accordance with law, by granting only one opportunity to the petitioner to file her written statement and reasonable opportunities to both the parties to lead their respective evidence. The aforesaid opportunity shall be granted by the Rent Controller subject to the condition that the petitioner shall tender the entire arrears of rent @ Rs.4500/- per month w.e.f. April, 2005 to October, 2009 on the first date of hearing, i.e., 5.12.2009 when the parties are directed to appear before the Rent Controller. It is made clear that the tender of rent, if any, made by the petitioner shall be without prejudice to her legal rights and in case the Rent Controller ultimately finds that the rate of rent is less than Rs.4500/- per month, the rent paid in excess shall be adjustable towards the future rent.
[10]. Disposed of. Dasti. November 4, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE