Punjab-Haryana High Court
Avtar Singh vs Smt. Tara Rani on 31 January, 2012
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
CR-6592-2011 (O&M) [1]
::::::::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR-6592-2011 (O&M)
Date of decision:31.01.2012
Avtar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Tara Rani ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
*****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
The tenant is in revision.
The landlady filed the eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short "the Act"] alleging therein that the demised premises (shop) was let out on 26.08.2004 at a monthly rent of `6,000/- but the tenant has failed to pay the rent since October, 2005 without any sufficient cause. The eviction petition was filed on 04.05.2007to which reply was filed on 03.09.2008. In reply, the tenant had alleged that the rate of rent was `5,500/- per month which has been paid till March, 2007.
The tenant filed an application on 03.09.2008 for assessment of the provisional rent to which no reply was filed by the landlady. However, vide order dated 05.12.2008, the learned Rent Controller assessed the provisional rent to the tune of `2,50,730/- by assessing the rent @ `6,000/- per month. The tenant was asked to tender the rent on 06.01.2009 which, of course, was not tendered rather an application was filed by the tenant on that date for extension of time on the ground that he wanted to challenge the order dated 05.12.2008 but since he has CR-6592-2011 (O&M) [2] ::::::::
received the certified copy of the order dated 05.12.2008 on 03.01.2009 and the High Court was closed due to winter vacation, therefore, he could not file the revision petition. The learned Rent Controller did not extend the time and passed the order of eviction on 06.01.2009 itself on account of non-tendering the rent on the first date of hearing. The tenant filed appeal on 21.01.2009 against order dated 06.01.2009 along with an application for stay which was granted on 22.01.2009 subject to the condition that the tenant would deposit the arrears of rent w.e.f. March, 2007 till the date of order on the admitted rate. Consequently, it is alleged that the tenant had deposited `1,40,750/- with interest @ 6% per annum @ `5,500/- per month from March, 2007 till 03.02.2009 vide challan/receipt dated 03.02.2009 and has paid the rent up to date w.e.f. 01.03.2009. Although it was argued before the learned Appellate Authority that the tenant was in possession of the shop @ `5,500/- per month and the Chaubara @ `500/- per month and was not obliged to tender the rent of the shop @ `6,000/- per month but this fact was found missing in the written statement filed by the tenant who had even filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for seeking permission to amend the written statement before the Appellate Authority to say that the Chaubara was taken on a monthly rent of `500/-, but the said application was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 15.09.2010 on the ground that the plea of taking Chaubara on rent is afterthought. The tenant challenged the said order before this Court by way of CR-1717-2011 which was dismissed in limine on 19.04.2011.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the landlady has been receiving the rent @ `5,500/- per month. It is submitted that it is a subsequent event which should have been taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority as it amply proves that the rate of rent was `5,500/- per month and not `6,000/- per month. In this regard, the learned Appellate Authority has observed that the provisional rent was assessed on the application of the tenant himself @ `6,000/- per month to the tune of `2,50,730/- which was never paid by the tenant on the first date of hearing and the Rent Controller had no other option but to pass the order of eviction. It was also observed that while staying the CR-6592-2011 (O&M) [3] ::::::::
eviction order dated 06.01.2009 on 22.01.2009, the tenant was directed to deposit the arrears of rent but even then those were not deposited before the learned Rent Controller.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner in detail and have perused the record from which I have found that in case of non-payment of provisionally assessed rent on the first date of hearing without any sufficient reason and having been unsuccessful in proving before the Appellate Authority that the rate of rent was not `6,000/- per month but `5,500/-, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and hence, the same is hereby dismissed.
January 31, 2012 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE