Sangeeta Rani vs Kamaljit Singh Bajaj

Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, J.—Challenge in the present revision petition, filed by the petitioner-landlady, is to the order dated 13.02.2014 (Annexure P1), whereby the Rent Controller, Malerkotla has adjourned to the case for filing reply to the application for recalling the order dated 14.01.2014 (Annexure P9), vide which, provisional rent was assessed at Rs. 13,03,320/-.

A perusal of the paperbook would go on to show that the landlady had filed an eviction petition for ejectment of the respondent-tenant on the ground that there were arrears of rent from 01.06.2007 upto 31.12.2011, to the tune of Rs. 10,84,250/- as per the rent note dated 04.04.2007 and only a sum of Rs. 7,80,300/- had been paid and apart from that amount, even house tax amounting to Rs. 1,93,494/- was due. Written statement was filed by the respondent-tenant whereby it was pleaded that he was ready to pay the rent to whomsoever the Court may direct, after assessment. The liability to pay the house tax was, however, denied. It was pleaded that Charanjit Singh was necessary party and the, petition was not maintainable in his absence.

Vide order dated 14.01.2014, the Rent Controller assessed the outstanding arrears of rent at Rs. 8,65,504/- plus house tax, interest and costs, totalling to Rs. 13,03,320/- and fixed the case for 13.02.2014 for tendering the rent by the respondent-tenant. Charanjit Singh Bajaj also filed an application for impleadment as co-petitioner, on the said date. Instead of tendering the rent on the date fixed, i.e., 13.02.2014, the respondent-tenant filed an application for recall of the order on the ground that Charanjit Singh was claiming to be the landlord and the rent assessed deserve to be recalled as it would create multiplicity of litigation. Accordingly, rent was not tendered by the respondent-tenant and the case was adjourned to 31.03.2014, for filing reply to the application and one filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. Resultantly, the said order has been challenged by the petitioner-landlady.

None has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent to assist the Court, though on earlier occasions, he was duly represented by his counsel.

Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Rajan alias Raj Kumar Vs. Rakesh Kumar, is not justified.

From the above perusal of facts, it is apparent that the respondent-tenant has raised an issue regarding the relationship of landlord-tenant and it has been held out that Charanjit Singh is also the co-owner and has a right and an application has also been filed for impleadment. Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that Charanjit Singh is none else but the father of the tenant. Needless to say that this is the controversy which has to be decided by the Rent Controller. However, the order whereby the Rent Controller has adjourned the proceedings without further proceeding in accordance with law, cannot be held to be justified. Even if in case there was a dispute regarding the relationship of landlord-tenant, the tenant should have deposited the amount and prayed that the same be not disbursed until a finding is recorded as to who is the landlord. The effect of non-deposit of amount assessed would necessarily entail serious consequences upon the tenant as has been laid down by the Apex Court in Rakesh Wadhawan and Others Vs. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and Others, in which case, it has been held that if the amount is not deposited, nothing else is to be done and ejectment is to be directed. The said view was noticed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajan @ Raj Kumar (supra), wherein, it was held as under:

"13. This Court is of the view that the ratio of judgment in Rakesh Wadhawan''s case (supra) leaves no manner of doubt that the provisional rent and other ancillary charges assessed by the Rent Controller had to be deposited by the tenant on the next date of hearing alongwith arrears, interest and costs etc., as may be determined by the above said authority. The ''first date of hearing'' has also been interpreted to mean, the first date of hearing after determination of provisional rent and other expenses by the Rent Controller. A reading of conclusions drawn in para No. 30 of the judgment in Rakesh Wadhawan''s case (supra) leaves no doubt that if after determination of the provisional rent, a tenant fails to deposit the same, nothing remains to be done and an order of ejectment of a tenant has to be passed. The language of conclusion No. 4 in the said para is very clear and needs no further interpretation. The Court is further of the view that the benefit of conclusions No. 5 and 6 would become available to a tenant only on his making a deposit of the provisional rent and other ancillary charges determined by the Rent Controller and not otherwise. It was implicitly made clear that it is the bounden duty of the tenant to deposit the provisional rent determined by the Rent Controller, otherwise it will entail the tenant''s ejectment from the premises in dispute. This Court feels that if a tenant is dissatisfied with the interim order passed by the Rent Controller, he has an opportunity to challenge the same before the date fixed for payment, in the higher forum.

We have gone through the findings given in Rajinder Lal case (supra). We respectfully are unable to agree with the proposition of law laid down therein. The rationale of the assessment as laid down in Rakesh Wadhawan''s case (supra) is to be discerned from the view as expressed in para No. 29 of the said judgment because the Hon''ble Supreme Court has balanced the interests of the landlords and tenants so as to ensure that the tenants get an adequate opportunity to deposit the rent consequent upon determination of the provisional rent. Whatever may be the extent of emphasis, which have been put on the view taken in the judgment relied upon by the petitioner, this Court is bound by the conclusions arrived at by the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan''s case (supra) wherein it has been held that if a tenant does not comply with the order on the first date of hearing after determination of the provisional rent and other ancillary expenses by the Court, then eviction has to follow."

This Court in various other judgments, namely, S. Nihal Singh Motors and Others Vs. Shama Malhotra etc., , Sanjeet Singh Vs. Mohali Motor Finance Co. & another 2011 (3) PLR 15 and Mrs. Birinder Khullar Vs. Maninder Singh, , took a similar view and held that the Rent Controller cannot take a decision to extend the period of time for the purpose of tendering provisional assessed rent, without there being any valid reason. It was held in Sanjeet Singh''s case (supra) as under:

"9. It is now well settled by this Court that in view of the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Rajan alias Raj Kumar''s case (supra), following the decision of the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan''s case (supra), the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to extend the period of time for tendering of provisionally assessed rent without any reason. In the present case, the learned Rent Controller has assessed the provisional rent on 22.01.2009 to be paid by the tenants on 24.02.2010, but the tenants failed to deposit the rent within the stipulated period and for that matter Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to extent the time for tendering of the provisionally assessed rent.

Learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that the case is at its fag end as the entire evidence has been concluded, however, it is disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the tenants have filed only their affidavits in their examination-in-chief.

Be that as it may, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan''s case (supra) and followed by the Division Bench of this Court in Rajan alias Raj Kumar''s case (supra), the question of law, which has been framed in the beginning of the judgment, is answered in favour of the petitioner/landlord by observing that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to extend the period of time for the purpose of tendering provisionally assessed rent without there being any reason.

In view of the above, the present revision petition is allowed."

Similarly, in Mrs. Birinder Khullar''s case (supra), the Court took the following view:

"19. Thus, after considering the facts of this case and law applicable thereto, the first question is decided in affirmative and it is held that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to order extension of time of payment of provisional rent by the tenant. Insofar as the second question is concerned, that too is decided in favour of the petitioner herein because even if it is assumed that the application for re-assessment was a review application, the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to grant further time to the tenant for tendering the provisional rent when he did not agree with him on his application for review. In that circumstance, he was left with no other alternative but to simply dismiss the application as he had actually done in the impugned order but faulted by granting time to the tenant to make the payment of arrears of rent beyond the date, which was given initially when the provisional rent was fixed.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present revision petition is thus, allowed and the impugned order dated 11.8.2010 is hereby set aside with cost throughout."

Accordingly, in such circumstances, the order dated 13.02.2014, to the extent that the Rent Controller took no action on account of non-tendering of the assessed amount, cannot be held to be justified. Accordingly, the Rent Controller, Malerkotla is directed to take appropriate steps to act in accordance with law, as has been held by the authorities discussed above, on account of the non-deposit of the assessed amount. Needful be done within a period of 2 weeks from the receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Revision petition is allowed in the above stated terms.