SATNAM SINGH Vs. AMARJIT KAUR
LAWS(P&H)-2022-11-168
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on November 30,2022

SATNAM SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
AMARJIT KAUR Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

RAJAN ALIAS RAJ KUMAR VS. RAKESH KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
MRS. BIRINDER KHULLAR VS. MANINDER SINGH [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH WADHAWAN VS. JAGDAMBA INDUSTRIES CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

ALKA SARIN, J. - (1.)The present revision petition has been filed impugning the order dtd. 11/4/2019 passed by the Rent Controller, Tarn Taran and order dtd. 28/3/2022 passed by the Appellate Authority, Tarn Taran whereby the eviction of the petitioner-tenant has been ordered on account of non-payment of rent.
(2.)The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the respondent-landlord filed a petition for ejectment under Sec. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Act') seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the premises in dispute bearing MC No.B2-19, Amritsar Road, Tarn Taran on inter-alia the grounds of non-payment of rent and personal bonafide necessity. The Rent Controller, vide order dtd. 11/1/2018, provisionally assessed the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.300.00 per month w.e.f. 1/4/2013 to 31/3/2017 amounting to Rs.14,400.00 alongwith interest of Rs.2,081.00 and costs of Rs.1000.00 totaling Rs.17,481.00 which was ordered to be paid by the petitioner-tenant to the landlord-respondent on 19/2/2018 which was to be considered as the first date of hearing. On 19/2/2018 the petitioner-tenant did not tender the amount assessed by the Rent Controller and his counsel made a statement that the payment of rent as assessed shall be made on the next date. This was recorded in the order dtd. 19/2/2018 passed by the Rent Controller and the case was adjourned to 5/3/2018 for payment. On 5/3/2018 the respondent-landlord filed an application before the Rent Controller for ordering ejectment of the petitioner-tenant for non-compliance of order dtd. 11/1/2018. During the pendency of the said application, the respondent-landlord filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority against the order dtd. 19/2/2018 passed by the Rent Controller extending the date for depositing the provisional rent. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal vide it's order dtd. 29/10/2018. The respondent-landlord filed CR-30-2019 before this Court. That since the application of the respondentlandlord for ordering ejectment of the petitioner-tenant for non-compliance of order dtd. 11/1/2018 was still pending before the Rent Controller, vide order dtd. 3/4/2019 this Court disposed off CR-30-2019 by directing the Rent Controller to decide the said application.
(3.)Vide order dtd. 11/4/2019 the Rent Controller accepted the application and ordered ejectment of the tenant-petitioner holding inter-alia "Therefore, the amount of rent fixed by the Court having not been paid on the date fixed and the Court extending the date for this purpose without assigning of any reason is not valid. Therefore, in such like circumstances and order passed by this Court extending the time of payment of rent from 19/2/2018 to 5/3/2018 suffers from a patent violation of settled provisions of law and hence is not valid. Accordingly, the application for ordering the ejectment of the respondent No.1/tenant for non-compliance of the order dtd. 11/1/2018 filed by the applicants-landlords is allowed and the tenant-respondent is ordered to be evicted .. ". The petitioner-tenant filed an appeal against the order dtd. 11/4/2019 which appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dtd. 28/3/2022. Hence, the present civil revision.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.