Tenant petitioned in revision to quash eviction order based on non-payment of provisionally assessed rent. Court held that pursuant to precedent, failure to deposit provisional rent mandates eviction, dismissing the revision.
Revision petition dismissed; eviction order 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 AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Civil Revision No.7028 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.11.2011
Shamsheed Ahmad
-----Petitioner
Vs.
Mrs Anju Bhalla
-----Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present:Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.
This is tenant’s revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 21.8.2010 of the Rent Controller, Jagadhri, whereby his eviction has been ordered on the ground of nonpayment of provisionally assessed rent and judgment dated 26.8.2011 of the Appellate Authority, dismissing his appeal against the aforesaid order.
Shorn of unnecessary details, it is suffice to say that in the ejectment petition filed by the respondent against the petitioner, the Rent Controller assessed provisional rent of the demised premises on 29.5.2010 @ 1,300 per month for the period w.e.f. 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2010 along with interest @ 3,016/-
C.R. No.7028 of 2011
2
and costs 750/-, total amounting to 34,966/-. Instead of making payment of the aforesaid provisionally assessed rent, the petitioner raised objections that the rent agreement dated 2.8.2005 sought to be relied upon by the Rent Controller was a forged document between the landlord and one Jahur Ahmad father of the petitioner and in fact the petitioner was a tenant under the respondent at monthly rent of `200/- and the petitioner did not tender the provisionally assessed rent. It may be noticed at this stage that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is not disputed. In case the petitioner was aggrieved against the said provisionally assessed rent, only remedy left with him was to challenge the said order and the same having not been done, he was required to tender the provisionally assessed rent, which admittedly he has failed to tender. Thus, in view of Division Bench judgment of this Court in Rajan alias Raj Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar 2010(1) RCR (Rent) 386, wherein it has been authoritatively laid down that in case provisional rent is not deposited by the tenant the eviction order has to follow, no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment.
Dismissed.
November 16, 2011 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ak JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether eviction order passed on non-payment of provisionally assessed rent is warrantable for judicial interference.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rajan alias Raj Kumar v. Rakesh KumarFollowed¶18
Rajan alias Raj Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar 2010(1) RCR (Rent) 386
Shamsheed Ahmad
Mrs Anju Bhalla
RAKESH KUMAR GARG
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
