Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinderpal Singh vs Bhagwan Singh on 26 August, 2013
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.2990 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision: 26th August, 2013
Surinderpal Singh
Petitioner
Versus
Bhagwan Singh
Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Kanisth Ganeriwala, Advocate for
Mr. D.N. Ganeriwala, Advocate for the respondent.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.
This is tenant's revision petition challenging the impugned order of eviction dated 05.12.2012 passed by the Appellate Authority, Patiala on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent.
Briefly stated, respondent-landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 against the petitioner-tenant for his ejectment from the demised premises on the ground of non-payment of rent and that he requires the premises in dispute for his own use and occupation. In the eviction petition, it was averred that the petitioner-tenant was in arrears of rent with effect from 01.03.2000 and has failed to pay the same. Further the respondent- landlord required the demised premises for his own use and occupation in order to settle one of his sons namely Devinder Singh and his family. The present accommodation was not sufficient as the respondent- Singh Rattan Pal 2013.08.30 10:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Civil Revision No.2990 of 2013 (O&M) 2 landlord was living in the house along with his wife and three married sons having their families.
Upon notice, the petitioner-tenant contested the ejectment petition by filing written statement wherein it was averred that rate of rent was ` 300 per month and he has paid the rent upto February 2005 and it was wrong that rent was due from 01.03.2000. It is further case of the petitioner-tenant that respondent-landlord was having sufficient accommodation and thus, his need was not genuine.
At this stage, it may be noticed that keeping in view the stand taken by the parties, the Rent Controller assessed the provisional rent vide order dated 11.09.2006 and directed the petitioner to tender provisional rent @ ` 300 per month for the period from February 2005 till the date of filing of the petition along with usual interest and costs; and the said amount of provisional rent was deposited by the petitioner and received by the respondent-landlord under protest. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:
"1. What is the rate of rent? OPP
2. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent since 1.3.2000? OPP
3. Whether the petitioner requires the demised premises for his own use and occupation? OPP
4. Relief."
After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court found that the rate of rent was ` 300 per month and not ` 1,000 as Singh Rattan Pal 2013.08.30 10:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Civil Revision No.2990 of 2013 (O&M) 3 claimed by the respondent-landlord; the petitioner-tenant was not in arrears of rent and the respondent-landlord required the demised premises for his own use and occupation. Consequently, the ejectment petition was allowed and the petitioner-tenant was ordered to hand over vacant possession of the premises in dispute to the respondent- landlord.
Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid order of the Rent Controller, the petitioner-tenant filed an appeal challenging the order of his eviction on the ground of bonafide personal necessity of the respondent-landlord. The respondent-landlord also filed cross- objections challenging the findings of the Rent Controller on issues No.1 and 2 i.e. rate of rent and arrears of rent.
The Appellate Authority vide its order dated 05.12.2012 reversed the findings of the Rent Controller on issue No.3 holding that bonafide necessity of the respondent-landlord is not proved; however, cross-objections filed on behalf of the respondent-landlord qua arrears of rent were accepted holding that the tenant was in arrears of rent for the period with effect from 01.03.2000 upto February 2005.
Challenging the findings of the Appellate Authority on the aforesaid issue of arrears of rent, the tenant has filed the instant revision petition.
Noticing the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court passed the following order on 17.05.2013: Singh Rattan Pal 2013.08.30 10:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Civil Revision No.2990 of 2013 (O&M) 4
"Contends that Rent Controller ordered eviction of the petitioner-tenant on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord. This finding was reversed by the Appellate Authority. However, the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that rent tendered by the petitioner was not legal and valid. No opportunity was granted by the Appellate Authority to tender the rent.
Notice of motion for 22.7.2013.
In case any execution petition is filed, the executing Court shall adjourn the same beyond the next date fixed before this Court."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the tenant tendered the rent as ordered by the Rent Controller while assessing the provisional rent. However, the Appellate Authority ordered ejectment of the petitioner-tenant without affording any opportunity to tender the arrears of rent with effect from 01.03.2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that such a tenant is entitled to an opportunity to tender the rent in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in 'Rakesh Wadhawan v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation' 2002(1) RCR (Rent) 514 wherein it has been observed that if the final adjudication by the Rent Controller is at variance with his interim or provisional order assessing the rent, then if the amount deposited by the tenant is found to be short or deficient, the Controller can pass a conditional order directing the tenant to place the landlord in possession of the premises by giving a reasonable time to the tenant for paying or tendering the deficient amount, failing which Singh Rattan Pal 2013.08.30 10:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Civil Revision No.2990 of 2013 (O&M) 5 alone he shall be liable to be evicted; however, compliance of the order by tendering the arrears of rent shall save him from eviction.
However, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord has vehemently opposed the argument raised on behalf of the petitioner- tenant. It has been contended that in the instant case, the petitioner had taken a specific defence by stating that he had already paid the rent with effect from 01.03.2000 upto February, 2005 and thereafter a specific issue was framed in this regard and in the said issue it has been found by the Appellate Authority that the petitioner was in arrears of rent and thus, in view of the judgment of this Court passed in 'Mohd. Fiaz v. Mohd. Gulzar and another' 2011(2) RCR (Rent) 538, wherein after relying upon Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra) it has been held that where a tenant denies his liability to pay the arrears of rent, there was no occasion for the Rent Controller to fix the provisional rent for the said period; and if the tenant claims a trial of his liability and if it is ultimately found that the findings do not support the tenant, he cannot take support of the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra); the petitioner-tenant was ordered to be ejected from the demised premises on the ground of non- payment of rent.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments of the authorities below. I have also perused the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the parties. Singh Rattan Pal 2013.08.30 10:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Civil Revision No.2990 of 2013 (O&M) 6
Certain facts are not in dispute. Respondent-landlord had claimed arrears of rent with effect from 01.03.2000 @ ` 1,000 per month, whereas the petitioner-tenant has taken a defence that rent payable was ` 300 per month and he has already paid the rent for the period with effect from 01.03.2000 upto February, 2005 and was not liable to pay any rent; and on the basis of the aforesaid pleadings where the petitioner had denied his liability to pay the rent for the aforesaid period, the Rent Controller had assessed the provisional rent @ ` 300 per month with effect from 01.03.2005 and the same was tendered by the petitioner-tenant. Thus, the petitioner had claimed trial on the issue of arrears of rent for the period with effect from 01.03.2000 upto February 2005. The Rent Controller, on consideration of evidence, recorded a finding that the rate of rent payable was ` 300 per month and the petitioner was not in arrears of rent. However, the Appellate Authority, vide impugned judgment dated 05.12.2012, has reversed the findings by holding that the petitioner has failed to prove the payment of arrears of rent with effect from 01.03.2000 upto February, 2005 and as such he was in arrears of rent.
It is well settled that the question of payment of rent is to be proved by the tenant. Admittedly, there is not an iota of evidence to prove the tenant's version that rent for the period with effect from 01.03.2000 to February 2005 has already been paid by him. Even before this Court, the petitioner has not made any effort by placing on record any document to prove that he has already made payment of Singh Rattan Pal 2013.08.30 10:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Civil Revision No.2990 of 2013 (O&M) 7 rent for the aforesaid period. In the absence of any evidence on record, the findings of the Appellate Authority are liable to be upheld.
Once that is so, the Appellate Authority was under no obligation to grant any opportunity to the petitioner-tenant to tender the arrears of rent in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra). As per the ratio of law laid down in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra), the situation of granting an opportunity comes only when the tenant tenders the rent which was previously assessed by the Rent Controller and had been paid by him. In such a situation, if the final adjudication is at variance with interim or provisional order and final rent assessed is higher than the provisional rent, the Rent Controller could have afforded opportunity to the tenant to make up the deficiency. Moreover, the judgment of Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra) has already been explained by this Court in 'Sunder Lal v. Narinder Sethi' 2012(1) RCR (Rent) 356 and 'Mohd. Fiaz's case (supra).
Learned counsel for the petitioner could not controvert the aforesaid law laid down by this Court. In view thereof, this petition has no merit.
Dismissed.
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE August 26, 2013 rps Singh Rattan Pal 2013.08.30 10:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh