Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nasib Kaur vs Sukhdev Singh & Another on 16 July, 2012
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CIVIL REVISION NO.4003 OF 2012
DATE OF DECISION : 16th JULY, 2012
Nasib Kaur
.... Petitioner
Versus
Sukhdev Singh & another
.... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
****
Present : Mr. S. S. Goraya, Advocate for the petitioner.
****
L. N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
Landlady Nasib Kaur has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 09.08.2011 passed by learned Executing Court i.e. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ropar thereby dismissing the execution petition filed by the landlady.
Petitioner-landlady filed ejectment petition under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 against respondents. Learned Rent Controller allowed the said ejectment petition vide ejectment order dated 12.10.2001 on the ground that the tenants were in arrears of rent for the period from 01.07.1997 till 31.12.1998 @ ` 1200/- per month. Appeal preferred by the tenants was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. Revision petition preferred by the tenants was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 18.11.2002 which has been reproduced in the impugned order and is reproduced hereunder:
"The Courts below have ordered the ejectement of the present petitioner on the ground that the tenants is in CR No.4003 of 2012 -2- arrears of rent for the period from 1.7.1997 to 31.12.1998 at the rate of `1200/- per month. They have not given any opportunity to the tenant to pay such rent as contemplated by the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan and other Vs. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and others (2002) 5 Supreme Court Cases
440. In view of the said judgment two months time is granted to the tenant to deposit such arrears of rent with the Rent Controller, failure of which ejectment order will be operative.
Revision petition stands disposed of."
Accordingly tenants deposited `22,700/- as arrears of aforesaid rent (including some amount as interest) on 06.01.2003 i.e. within the stipulated period of two months as per above order of this Court. Nevertheless the landlady insisted on execution of the ejectement order alleging that full amount of interest had not been paid. The said plea of the landlady has been negatived by the executing Court vide order dated 09.08.2011 which is under challenge in this revision petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.
Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that interest should have been calculated upto 06.01.2003 the date of deposit of arrears of rent but the tenants calculated and deposited the interest for the period upto 31.12.1998 only and, therefore, the ejectment order has not become inexecutable. The contention cannot be accepted. Order dated 18.11.2002 of CR No.4003 of 2012 -3- this Court extracted hereinbefore does not stipulate payment of any interest. In spite thereof, the tenants deposited interest by calculating the same up to 31.12.1998 the date up to which the amount of rent was due. The due amount of rent from 01.07.1997 till 31.12.1998 @ `1200/- per month come to `21,600/- only, but the tenants deposited `22,700 i.e. `1100/- as interest in addition to the due amount of rent. As noticed hereinbefore, order of this Court did not stipulate payment of any interest by the tenants. Consequently it cannot be said that the tenants have not complied with order dated 18.11.2002 passed by this Court. On the other hand, the tenants have duly complied with the said order. Consequently the ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller is no longer executable and the execution petition has, therefore, been rightly dismissed by the executing Court.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find no infirmity, much less illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in impugned order of the executing Court so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine.
16th July, 2012 (L. N. MITTAL)
'raj' JUDGE