Tenant sought revision against eviction order and appeal dismissal due to non-payment of arrears. Court dismissed petition as petitioner professed no intent to pay rent.
Revision petition dismissed; orders of Rent Controller and Appellate Authority upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.3700 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 21.10.2009
Anil Vohra .....Petitioner
versus
Manjit Singh and another
.....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
Present : Mr.Baldev Raj Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Ashok Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent.
-.-
ORDER
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
This revision petition is preferred by the tenant who has been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises comprising Booth No.388, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh, by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh vide order dated 12.2.2007, on the ground of non-payment of arrears of provisionally assessed rent and whose appeal against the aforestated order of the Rent Controller, has also been dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, vide the impugned judgment dated 3.6.2009.
Both the Courts have concurrently held that the petitioner did not tender the arrears of rent, provisionally assessed by the Rent Controller
C.R. No.3700 of 2009 (O&M) 2
despite opportunity and has incurred the consequences of eviction in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan and others versus M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and others, 2003 (2) Civil Court Cases 361 (SC).
Notice of motion was issued and thereafter, in order to test his bonafide, the petitioner-tenant was directed vide order dated 29.7.2009, to bring the arrears of provisionally assessed rent.
Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner who has already been ordered to be evicted due to non-payment of provisionally assessed arrears of rent by the Rent Controller, he is not inclined to make payment of those arrears. In other words, the petitionertenant has no intention to pay the arrears of rent and he wants to enjoy the premises dis-honestly even without paying the rent.
In this view of the matter, no interference in the impugned orders is called for by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
Dismissed.
(SURYA KANT) JUDGE
21-10-2009
Mohinder
1 issue framed by the court
whether the revisional court should interfere with the eviction order and dismissal of the respondent's appeal when the petitioner expressed no intention to pay the arrears of rent.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rakesh Wadhawan and others versus M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and othersReferred¶18
Rakesh Wadhawan and others versus M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and others, 2003 (2) Civil Court Cases 361 (SC.)
Anil Vohra
Manjit Singh
Surya Kant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
