Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sushil Kumar Dass vs Karam Singh on 7 February, 2014
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Civil Revision No. 5661 of 2013 -1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Civil Revision No. 5661 of 2013
Date of Decision: 07.2.2014.
Sushil Kumar Dass .......Petitioner
Versus
Karam Singh .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Ms. Hemani Sarin, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate
for the respondent.
****
SABINA, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 8.7.2013 whereby objection petition filed by the respondent had been accepted and the execution petition filed by the petitioner-landlord, was dismissed.
Petitioner had filed petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 seeking ejectment of the respondent on the ground of arrears of rent. Admittedly, so far as deficiency in payment of rent is concerned, the same relates to the month of May 2005. The Rent Controller vide order dated 10.6.2011 ordered that respondent should complete the deficiency in rent within five weeks failing which he was ordered to be evicted from the premises in question and was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the premises in question within one month. Respondent was, thus, liable to make up the deficiency upto 15.7.2011.
Singh Gurpreet2014.02.13 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Civil Revision No. 5661 of 2013 -2-
Case of the landlord-petitioner, before the Executing Court, was that the respondent had failed to make up the deficiency within the prescribed period and was, therefore, liable to be ejected. Respondent, on the other hand, filed the objection petition. Vide the impugned order, the Executing Court has allowed the objection petition filed by the tenant and has dismissed the execution petition filed by the landlord.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent was liable to make up the deficiency in the rent on or before 15.7.2011. The parties were sharing the same premises. Respondent was aware that on 16.6.2011, petitioner was not available and, consequently, sent the amount in question to the petitioner through money order. As per the report of the postman, the money order could not be delivered to the petitioner as he was not found available. Thereafter, the option available to the tenant was to have deposited the rent before the Rent Controller in terms of Section 6-A of the Act. However, the tenant had failed to do the needful. Application moved by the tenant for extension of time to make up the deficiency qua rent was got dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 18.1.2012. Hence, the execution petition was liable to be allowed.
Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that petitioner had intentionally not accepted the rent amount in question so as to seek the ejectment of the petitioner. Respondent had been willing to make up the deficiency of the rent amount.
Section 6-A of the Act reads as under:-
6-A. Deposit of rent.- (1) Notwithstanding anything to Singh Gurpreet the contrary contained in any other law for the 2014.02.13 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Civil Revision No. 5661 of 2013 -3- time being in force, if a landlord refuses to receive, or grant a receipt for, any rent payable in respect of the building or rented land when, tendered to him by a tenant, the tenant may apply to the Controller for leave to deposit, the rent in his office, and the Controller shall receive the deposit, if after examining the applicant. He is satisfied that there is sufficient ground for the application and if the applicant pays the fee, if any, chargeable for the issue of the notice hereinafter provided.
(2) When a deposit has been received under sub-
section (1), it shall be deemed to be a payment made by the tenant, to his landlord in respect of the rent due.
(3) On receiving the deposit, the Controller shall give notice of the receipt thereof to the landlord and shall pay the amount thereof to him.
Thus, as per the above provision, in case the landlord refuses to receive the amount in question, then the tenant can deposit the same before the Rent Controller after seeking requisite leave to deposit the rent.
In the present case, the ejectment petition was disposed of by the Rent Controller vide order dated 10.6.2011. Five weeks time was granted to the respondent to make up the deficiency qua the rent amount. The respondent send a money order in the sum of ` 625/- to the landlord on 16.6.2011. As per the report of the postman, the same could not be delivered to the decree holder as he was not found available at the given address. In these Singh Gurpreet 2014.02.13 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Civil Revision No. 5661 of 2013 -4- circumstances, the only option available to the tenant was to have deposited the amount in question before the Rent Controller to save his ejectment. However, respondent had failed to do so. Since the respondent had failed to deposit the rent for the month of May, 2005 within the time frame, allowed by the Rent Controller, the Executing Court was liable to execute the order of ejectment. The objections filed by the respondent were not liable to be allowed merely on the presumption that the tenant was ready and willing to tender the amount in question.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 8.7.2013 is set aside. Consequently, the objection petition filed by the tenant is ordered to be dismissed. The Executing Court is directed to execute the ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller.
(SABINA) JUDGE February 07, 2014 Gurpreet Singh Gurpreet 2014.02.13 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh