Wazir Chand vs Satish Kumar

Vinod K. Sharma, J.—This is a revision petition filed against the order vide which the objections filed by the petitioner in the execution application have been dismissed.

The petitioner/objector had challenged the maintainability of the execution application on the ground that the present petitioner had complied with the order dated 29.7.2003. It was the case of the petitioner that the learned Rent Controller was pleased to give two months time to the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month since 1.6.1984 along with house tax at the rate of 15 per cent annum with other costs and interest as per the judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in Rakesh Wadhawan v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation (2002) 131 P.L.R. 370.

The case of the petitioner is that he had deposited the rent along with interest and house tax w.e.f. 1.6.1984 to 1.9.2003 i.e. in excess of the rent due as according to the petitioner he was liable to pay rent from 1.6.1984 to 18.7.1989. The case of the petitioner is that he was liable to pay the interest only upto date of filing of the petition. However, the learned Executing Court came to the conclusion that the rent was required to be deposited from 1.6.1984 till the date of passing of the order of assessment. It was also held by the Executing Court that the petitioner had tendered Rs. 55,000/- towards the rent from 1.6.1984 to 1.9.2003 whereas actual amount was Rs. 76,000/-. It is also pertinent to mention here that in the present case the petitioner had chosen to deny the relationship of landlord and tenant. However, the learned Rent Controller held that there was relationship of landlord and tenant. In view of Rakesh Wadhawan''s case (supra) an opportunity was given to the petitioner to pay the arrears of rent together with costs and interest. Though in the present case in view of the denial of relationship by the petitioner there was no necessity for the Rent Controller to frame assessment order in pursuance to the proviso to Section 13(2)(1) of the Act in view of the law laid down in Yash Pal Singh Vs. Vijay Kumar, still he was given an opportunity which he failed to avail.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the rent due would only be till the date of filing of the petition and not till the date of passing of order of ejectment. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the judgment of Full Bench of Himachal Pradesh in Wazir Chand v. Ambika Rani and Anr. 2006(2) R.C.R. 202 would not be applicable in view of the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in Chinnamma Vs. Gopalan and others, .

The contention of the learned Counsel is misconceived. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Chinnamma''s case (supra) was interpreting the provisions of Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, wherein u/s 11(2)(C) a notice is required to be given claiming rent. There is no such provision in the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 and therefore the reliance of the petitioner on the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court is misconceived.

In view of the fact that the petitioner failed to comply with the order for payment of rent, no fault can be found with the judgment passed by the learned Executing Court. Hence, the revision being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.