Bachan Singh vs Yadwinder Kumar

S.D. Anand, J.—The following facts are beyond the pale of controversy :-

(i) The petitioner - tenant did not pay up the provisional rent fixed by the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 05.05.2007. Following that

fixture, the matter came to be adjourned to 07.06.2007 for payment of the provisional rent. The matter came to be adjourned thereafter to a

number of dates, on each of which, part payments were made. However, there is no compliance of the order dated 05.05.2007 in entirety.

(ii) The learned Rent Controller, for want of complete noncompliance with the order aforementioned, ordered the ejectment of the petitioner -

tenant from the tenanted premise.

(iii) The learned Appellate Authority upheld the order.

The petitioner-tenant is in revision.

In support of the averment that there is nothing compulsive on the part of the learned Rent Controller in ordering ejectment just on account of

the (complete) non-compliance with the order for payment of provisional rent, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Manjit Kaur and

others v. Pardeep Kumar passed in CR No. 5423 of 2009.

Though the judgment in Manjit Kaur and others'' case (supra) is indeed supportive of the point of view advocated on behalf of the petitioner, it

does not solve the riddle for the petitioner in view of the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Rajan alias Raj Kumar v. Rakesh

Kumar passed in 2010 (1) R.C.R.(Rent) 386 : CR No. 3577 of 2006. In that case, the conclusions recorded by the Full Bench were as under :-

In Section 13(2)(iii) proviso, the words ''assessed by the Controller'' qualify not merely the words ""the costs of application"" but the entire

preceding part of the sentence i.e. ''the arrears of rent and interest at six per cent per annum on such arrears together with the costs of application''.

The proviso to Section 13(2)(i) of East Punjab Restriction Act, 1949 casts an obligation on the Controller to make an assessment of (i) arrears

of rent, (ii) the interest on such arrears, and (iii) the cots of application and then quantify by way of an interim or provisional order the amount

which the tenant must pay or tender on the ''first date of hearing'' after the passing of such order of ''assessment'' by the Controller so as to satisfy

the requirement of the proviso.

Of necessity, ''the date of first hearing of the application'' would mean the date falling after the date of such order by Controller.

On the failure of the tenant to comply, nothing remains to be done and an order for eviction shall follow. If the tenant makes compliance, the

inquiry shall continue for finally adjudicating upon the dispute as to the arrears of rent in the light of the contending pleas raised by the landlord and

the tenant before the Controller.

(emphasis supplied).

If the final adjudication by the Controller be at variance with his interim or provisional order passed under the proviso, one of the following two

orders may be made depending on the facts situation of a given case. If the amount deposited by the tenant is found to be in excess, the Controller

may direct a refund. If on the other hand, the amount deposited by the tenant is found to be short or deficient, the Controller may pass a

conditional order directing tenant to place the landlord in possession of the premises by giving a reasonable time to the tenant for paying or

tendering the deficit amount failing which alone he shall be liable to be evicted. Compliance shall save him for eviction.

While exercising discretion for affording the tenant an opportunity of making good the deficit, one of the relevant factors to be taken into

consideration by the Controller would be, whether the tenant has paid or tendered with substantial regularly the rent falling due month by month

during the pendency of the proceedings.

In fact, the reference came to be made in the context of the divergent views expressed by two Single Benches of this Court. The Full Bench

affirmed the Single Bench view in Madan Lal and another v. Baldev Raj 2004 (2) R.C.R.(Rent) 93 : (2004) P.L.R. 834. The view taken by the

Single Bench in Rajinder Lal v. Gopal Krishan 2006 (1) R.C.R.(Rent) 438 : (2006) P.L.R. 124 was not affirmed by the Division Bench. In

obtaining the view noticed above, the Division Bench relied upon the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in Rakesh Wadhawan and Others

Vs. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and Others, and Vinod Kumar v. Prem Lata, 2003 (2) R.C.R.(Rent) 329 : 2003 H.R.R. 699.

In the light of foregoing discussion, it is compulsive for this Court to uphold the finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller and also the

learned Appellate Authority.

The petition shall stand dismissed accordingly.