Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harbhajan Singh vs Gian Chand on 18 January, 2012
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
CR-403-2012 (O&M) [1]
:::::::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR-403-2012 (O&M)
Date of decision:18.01.2012
Harbhajan Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Gian Chand ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mr. Johan Kumar, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
*****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL)
This revision petition is filed by the tenant against the orders dated 21.09.2011 and 28.11.2011 by which he has been ordered to vacate the demised premises on the ground of non-payment of provisionally assessed rent on the first date of hearing.
The landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 [for short "the Act] on the ground that the tenant, who is in possession of a shop carved out in House No.5K/74, N.I.T., Faridabad, is in arrears of rent @ `4,000/- per month excluding electricity charges from 01.03.2008 to 31.07.2011.
The learned Rent Controller, vide his order dated 06.09.2011, fixed the provisional rent to the tune of @ `2,000/- per month for the past 36 months and after adding @ `8,800/- as interest and costs of `1,000/-, directed the tenant to pay a total sum of @ `81,800/- as provisional rent on or before 21.09.2011. However, the tenant failed to pay the provisionally assessed rent on the first date of hearing. The learned Rent Controller, thus, passed the order of eviction on the same day, i.e. 21.09.2011, against which the tenant had filed statutory appeal in which it was averred that the rent could not be paid because of non-communication of the order dated CR-403-2012 (O&M) [2] :::::::
06.09.2011 by his advocate, but the learned Appellate Authority had found the grounds taken up by the tenant to be frivolous and afterthought while dismissing the appeal on the ground that if the tenant fails to pay the provisionally assessed rent on the first date of hearing without any sufficient cause, then he has to face the eviction in terms of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajan alias Raj Kumar v.
Rakesh Kumar, 2010(2) PLR 201.
In this revision petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has repeated the same arguments which were raised before the learned Appellate Authority though without any substance in it. Hence, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
January 18, 2012 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE