Mohan Singh vs Manmohan Kumar

Jaswant Singh, J.—Petitioner (tenant) is in revision u/s 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the concurrent findings returned by the Authorities below whereby the eviction application filed by the respondent (landlord) has been allowed by the learned Rent Controller, Kharar vide order dated 04.02.2013(P-7) on the ground of non payment of provisional rent assessed by the Rent Controller and the findings thereof were affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority, Mohali vide its judgment dated 22.08.2013(P-9). In brief, facts of the case are that respondent (landlord) filed a ejectment application on various grounds which were contested by the petitioner (tenant). Learned Rent Controller provisionally assessed the rent on 12.10.2012(P-6) and fixed the next date as 30.11.2012. However, on the said date rent was not paid by the petitioner (tenant) and on his request the matter was adjourned to 11.12.2012. Even on 11.12.2012 the rent was not paid by the tenant, therefore, the respondent (landlord) moved an application for eviction of the tenant. The case was adjourned for arguments on the said application on 10.01.2013 but on the said date the tenant filed an application for tendering the cheque dated 10.01.2013 for Rs. 9400/- in respect of arrears of rent. Said Cheque was never accepted by the respondent (landlord) and consequently the learned Rent Controller passed the eviction order on 4.2.2013 by applying the law laid down by Hon''ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan and Others Vs. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and Others,

On an appeal being preferred by the tenant before the learned Appellate Authority, Mohali, the Authority by observing the above mentioned facts as well as the settled position of law laid down by Hon''ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan''s case (Supra) dismissed the said appeal. Hence the present revision petition.

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner (tenant) and have also gone through the case file carefully with his able assistance.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner (tenant) has argued that petitioner had entered into an agreement to sell and, therefore, his status as tenant had changed and thus the present eviction petition was not maintainable. It is further argued that pursuant to the assessment of provisional rent, tenant had tendered rent under registered cover but the same was not accepted by the landlord and, therefore, the order of assessment of provisional rent stood complied with and, therefore, eviction order could not be passed.

After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner (tenant) and perusing the paper book, this Court is of the considered view that the present petition is devoid of any merit and the same deserves to be dismissed.

The arguments that have been raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner (tenant) do not hold any water for the reason that a mere agreement to sell dated 20.11.2008 (P-1) does not confer any title upon the tenant and the relationship still existed amongst them. Under the Rent proceedings a tenant is required to tender rent which is provisionally assessed by the Rent Controller, by the next date of hearing fixed by the Rent Controller and if the said rent is not paid the eviction is the only necessary corollary. In so far as the tendering of the rent under the registered cover and non acceptance of the same by the landlord is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is nothing on record to prove this aspect of the matter especially when both the Authorities have observed the conduct of the tenant who did not pay the rent provisionally assessed by the next date of hearing as fixed by the Rent Controller. In view of the foregoing discussion as well as strict principles laid down by Hon''ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan''s case (supra), this Court do not find any merit in the present revision petition, which is hereby dismissed.