Frontline Developers Ltd. vs Arun Kumar

S.D. Anand, J.—The petitioner-tenant, after having lost at the hustings before both the Forums i.e. learned Rent Controller and also the learned Appellate Authority, is in revision to obtain invalidation of the ejectment order granted against it.

The order on point of ejectment came about on account of refrain on the part of the petitioner to pay the provisionally assessed rent for the period July 2003 to 25.9.2009. That order came about in accord with the law laid down by the Apex Court in Rakesh Wadhawan v. Jagdama Industries Corporation AIR 2006 CR 2004 and a Division Bench judgment dated 7.1.2010 passed in Civil Revision No. 3577 of 2006 (Rajan alias Raj Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar).

It is vehemently argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order deserves out right invalidation for the very simple reason that rent for the above indicated period had already been paid up. In elaboration thereof, it is argued that rent for the period July 2003 upto the year 2004 had been paid to (Om Parkash, father of the respondent- present landlord) who died in the year 2005 and after whose death respondent donned the cap of the landlord. It is also argued that the rent for the period thereafter was paid to Subhash Chander an another son of Om Parkash who did not, however, issue any receipt in that behalf. The plea raised is that since the petitioner-tenant had denied the existence of relationship between him as the tenant-landlord, it was inappropriate for the learned Rent Controller to at all proceed to provisionally assess the rent. Reliance, in support of the advocated view, is placed on M/s Rachitech Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. Kundan Steel Pvt. Ltd. 2006 (2) R.C.R. (Rent) 687. It was further argued in the context that Om Parkash deceased had made a testamentary disposition in favour of Subhash Chander aforementioned and further that there had been a family partiion in which the tenanted partition fall to the share of Subhash Chand.

Insofar as the petitioner-tenant is concerned, he was, not a party to the testamentary disposition and the averred oral partition. He cannot, therefore, advert to it to non suit the respondent/landlord who is concededly one of sons of deceased Om Parkash.

When called upon to invite the attention of this Court to the receipts which were averred to have been issued in lieu of the payment of rent, learned Counsel could invite the attention of this Court only to the two receipts dated 5.12.2004 (Rs.40,000/- and Rs. 1,20,000/-) which only purport to document the averred payment of rent Qua the period, other than those to which those related the learned Counsel argues that no receipt came to be issued by Subhash Chander.

In this context, it may be noticed that the petitioner herein had also made an averment that he issued a cheque too in respect of payment of rent for the period July 2003 to 25.9.2009 but respondent-landlord did not get it encashed. That averment was not accepted by the learned Rent Controller by noticing that no documentation with regard to the issuance of averred cheque had been produced. Nothing has been urged to persuade this Court to hold the contrary.

In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Rakesh Wadhawan''s case (supra) and Rajan alias Raj Kumar''s case (supra), a tenant who does not pay up the provisionally assessed rent must face imminent eviction. In the present case, the petitioner tenant cannot be heard to deny that respondent-landlord is one of the sons of deceased landlord and is, thus, competent to raise a claim for ejectment. It is not that the tenant would get away from the liability of paying provisionally assessed rent just like that by raising an apparently feeble and unsubstantiated plea denying existence of landlord and tenant relationship.

In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed.