Management Geeta Vidya Mandir Uch Vidyalaya vs Ved Parkash

Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, J.

Challenge in the present revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution by the petitioner-landlord is to the order dated 21.11.2013 (Annexure P/6) and subsequent orders dated 23.11.2013 (Annexure P/9) and 23.8.2014 (Annexure P/11) whereby his application for evicting the respondent-tenant on the ground of non depositing the provisional rent has been rejected. Counsel for the petitioner-landlord has placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in Rakesh Wadhawan and Others Vs. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and Others, and Rajan alias Raj Kumar Vs. Rakesh Kumar, to submit that once the balance provisional rent was not tendered on the date fixed i.e. 21.11.2013, the eviction order should have been passed and the Rent Controller, Narwana was not justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner.

A perusal of the fact would go on to show that the eviction petition dated 27.9.2011 (Annexure P/1) came to be filed against the respondent-tenant from shop No. 19 on the ground of non payment of rent from 1.10.2008. The rent was claimed at Rs. 1024/- per month from 1.4.2009 and for the subsequent period it was at the enhanced rate mentioned in the petition. It is matter of fact that on the first date itself the tenant put in appearance on 22.11.2011 and tendered a sum of Rs. 8910/- from 1.4.2011 to 31.2.2012 including the cost and interest. On the statement of the counsel for the landlord case was fixed for fixing of provisional rent. It was alleged that tenant was not paying rent as per rent note and was disputing the rate of rent. Subsequently, on 22.10.2013 (Annexure P/5), the Rent Controller, Narwana assessed the rent at Rs. 900/- per month to be fair and equitable rent and imposed a cost of Rs. 1000/- and interest at me rate of 6% per annum from the date the tenant was in arrears of rent and the case was fixed for 21.11.2013 for payment of balance amount. It is pertinent to mention here that amount was not quantified as has been laid down by this Court in Gurpreet Singh and Another Vs. Brijinder Bhardwaj and Another, and thus tenant did not have any specific amount which had to be tendered as such on the date fixed which was 21.11.2013.

On the said date, the Rent Controller, Narwana referred the matter to the Lok Adalat which was being held on 23.11.2013 keeping in view the fact that the nature of the case was such and it was fixed for payment of balance amount of rent. The petitioner-landlord immediately filed an application dated 23.11.2013 (Annexure P/7) that the provisional rent had not been tendered and eviction order should have been passed. On the date fixed i.e. 23.11.2013 the tenant stated that he was tendering the provisional rent of Rs. 29,700/- for the period of 33 months i.e. from 1.4.2011 to 31.3.2013 + interest of Rs. 2450/- and Rs. 1000/- as costs. However, the authorised representative of the landlord refused to take the tendered amount since it had to be tendered on 21.11.2013. Accordingly, compromise which was to be arrived at before the Lok Adalat could not be reached and matter was sent back. The tenant filed reply and mentioned that exact amount had not been quantified in the order and case had been sent before the Lok Adalat for tendering of rent and the landlord refused to accept the rent and therefore, there was no fault on the part of the tenant and the case had been put up before the Lok Adalat with the consent of the parties. The Rent Controller, Narwana dismissed the application of the landlord on the ground that matter had been sent to the Lok Adalat with the consent of the parties and was of such nature which could be compromised and there was no fault on the part of the tenant and the Court had never granted any extension and only in case of wilful default, the ejectment was to be ordered. Accordingly, the application was dismissed with costs of Rs. 500/-.

As noticed the counsel has submitted that the rent had not been tendered on the date fixed and therefore, ejectment should have been ordered.

After hearing counsel for the petitioner-landlord, this Court is of the opinion that the principle in the maxim ''actus curiae neminem gravabit'' that ''any act of Court shall not harm the party'' is to be kept in mind while deciding the present petition. Firstly in the present case, the Rent Controller, Narwana did not assess the exact amount of the provisional rent which was its bounden duty and as per the law laid down by this Court in Gurpreet Singh''s case (supra).

Secondly, the matter was sent to the Lok Adalat for tendering of rent since there was no other ground of eviction and it would have become infructuous if the amount had been tendered. As noticed the provisional rent which was due was offered by the tenant but was refused to be accepted by the landlord who was sensing a ground of eviction that would give him cause of action keeping in view the judgment of the Apex Court in Rakesh Wadhawan''s case and the judgment of this Court in Rajan @ Raj Kumar''s case (supra). In such circumstances, it is not a wilful default on the part of the tenant which would entail eviction in summary manner as has been laid down, once the tenant was willing to deposit the rent and on account of the matter being referred to the Lok Adalat a day beyond the date fixed. If the rent could not be tendered it is not the fault of the tenant and the Rent Controller, Narwana was well justified in dismissing the application. The spirit and purpose of the rent legislation is to protect the tenant against arbitrary and unfair demand and once it was not a wilful default as such on the part of the tenant, the Rent Controller was well justified in not ordering the ejectment.

This Court in Sanjeet Singh Vs. Mohali Motor Finance Co. and another, , has held that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to extend the period of time of the provisionally assessed rent without any reason. In the present case as noticed above, it is not an extension as such but only fixing of the case before the Lok Adalat so that matter would be disposed of since the tenant was always ready and willing to deposit the amount.

Recently, the Apex Court in Dina Nath (D) by L.Rs. and Another Vs. Subhash Chand Saini and Others, has held that if the non compliance is not serious or is based on good reason, the Rent Controller would not strike of the defence of the tenant. The default has to be wilful, contumacious or negligent and careless behaviour and the Court has to evaluate the facts in the given case before exercising its discretion. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, the discretion which has been exercised by the Rent Controller, Narwana is well reasoned and there is no scope of interference with the impugned orders.

Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed.