Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dhaninder Pal Singh S/O Sh. Ved Raj Jain vs Surinder Kaur Wd/O Late Sh. Kartar Singh ... on 25 April, 2013
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
CR No. 2589 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
CR No. 2589 of 2013
Date of decision: April 25, 2013
Dhaninder Pal Singh s/o Sh. Ved Raj Jain
....... Petitioner
Versus
Surinder Kaur wd/o late Sh. Kartar Singh and others
........ Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present:- Mr. Binderjit Singh, Advocate
for the appellant.
****
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?
K. Kannan, J (oral).
1. The decree holder is aggrieved that the Executing Court even while holding that the judgment debtor had made a short tender has not ordered eviction. The matter put in execution was a decision by a Rent Controller in eviction petition filed by the landlord complaining that there had been a default in payment of rent at the rate of `2,000/- per annum from 1.1.1998 to 31.12.2005. The Court had directed that the arrears of rent and costs shall be paid within 15 days and in that eventuality the petition for ejectment will stand declined. On the other hand, if the amount was not deposited the landlord will be able to secure eviction.
2. The execution petition for an ejectment was moved by the landlord contending that there had been no proper CR No. 2589 of 2013 2 compliance with the directions given by the Rent Controller. The contention by the tenant was that he had deposited the amount within time and in the manner of deposit there was said to be a short tender by `1919/-. The counsel would argue that the Executing Court had no power to go behind the decree and it ought to have ordered delivery on finding that there had been a short tender.
3. I have gone through the decree which was put in execution. The decree only directs that "the respondent shall pay the arrears of rent @`2000/- per month from 1.1.1998 till 31.12.2005". It has also directed that "respondents may deposit such arrears with court or pay to petitioner within 15 days from today.....". This order has been passed on 2.3.2010. There is no specific direction for payment of interest. If the landlord would therefore complain that the short tender by way of interest, I would find in the absence of such specific provision the landlord cannot complain that there had been a disobedience of the direction and consequently the order of ejectment could not have been passed. Learned counsel argues that the direction for payment of arrears was in conformity with the decision of the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation 2002 1 RCR (Rent) 514 and that judgment refers to payment of interest at 6% as well. If the decree must be taken to apply the direction for interest then the landlord can secure the short fall in interest but not make short tender as a ground for ejectment itself. The landlord will only be entitled to recover the amount of `1919/- and not obtain ejectment. The application for delivery was therefore not competent CR No. 2589 of 2013 3 and I will find no reason to assail the order.
4. The revision is dismissed.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE April 25, 2013 archana