Held that despite the eviction order, the tenant must pay the balance rent due and interest before eviction becomes enforceable.
Tenant directed to pay Rs. 1,00,500/- with interest within 6 weeks; eviction confirmed thereafter.
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.
-1-
C.R. No.1366 of 1997
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No.1366 of 1997 Date of Decision. 28.08.2012
3. C.R. No.1368 of 1997
Jatinder Singh son of Dyal Singh Prop. M/s Mounty Fabs, Booth No.326, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh
.....Petitioner
Versus
Mukesh Mehra s/o K.C. Mehra and another
.....Respondents
Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate and Mr. Jaivir Chandel, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. BBS Randhawa, Advocate for Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate for the respondents.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
-.-
K. KANNAN J. (ORAL)
same parties. They related to alleged defaults in payment of rent for different periods. While the landlord was contending that the agreed rent was 3500/- per month, the tenant contended that rent note executed in the year 1984 stipulated a rent of 2000/- per month and it continued to be as such. The landlord, however, explained that although the rent note stipulated the rent at 2000/- per month and the tenant was paying the said rent, the rent was actually increased to 3500/- per month w.e.f. 01.12.1987. Having regard to the fact that the tenant had paid rent and made a tender on the first hearing only for the amount calculated @ `
-2-
C.R. No.1366 of 1997
2000/- per month, the Court found that there had been a short tender and ordered eviction.
3500/- and not 2000/-, he would be prepared to make the payment if such a direction is given. This, according to him, would conform to the decision of the Supreme Court where in Para 30, the Supreme Court sums up the position and clause (5) would be relevant for our purpose:-“5. If the final adjudication by the Controller be at variance with his interim or provisional order passed under the proviso, one of the following two orders may be made depending on the facts situation of a given case. If the amount deposited by the tenant is found to be in excess, the Controller may direct a refund. If, on the other hand, the amount deposited by the tenant is found to be short or deficient, the Controller may pass a conditional order directing tenant to place the landlord in possession of the premises by giving a reasonable time to the tenant for paying or tendering the deficit amount, failing which alone he shall be liable to be evicted. Compliance shall save him from eviction.”
3500/- and not 2000/- as originally stipulated under the rent note. If we must calculate the total rent payable @ ` 3500/- per month from the date when the Court found that there hadC.R. No.1366 of 1997
-3-
been an increase from 2000/- to 3500/- namely from 01.12.1987 till 11.06.1993 when the third eviction petition was filed by the landlord, the total amount would be 2,34,500/-. If the amount deposited/paid by the tenant was 2000/- per month, the amount that would still be due on the date of petition, would be 1,00,500/-. The tenant will also become liable for whatever rent that fell due subsequently at the same rate. I do not have definite details about the amount paid and the counsel appearing on behalf of the landlord states that he has no instruction to vouch for the payments actually received by him. If there is still any amount due and payable, the landlord is at liberty to issue a notice for the subsequent period and if the amount is not paid, the landlord will be entitled to take such action as is admissible by law. This amount will also bear interest @ 12% from the respective dates when the amount fell due till the date of payment. The amount of 1,00,500/- shall be paid to the landlord within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order failing which the order of eviction shall stand confirmed and enforceable in accordance with law.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE
August 28, 2012 Pankaj*
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the tenant must pay the deficit rent amount as per the actual agreed rate before confirming eviction.
Whether the tenant is liable for interest on the unpaid rent deficiency.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rakesh Wadhawan Vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial CorporationReferred¶25
Rakesh Wadhawan Vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation 2002(1) RCR 514
Jatinder Singh Prop. M/s Mounty Fabs
Mukesh Mehra
K. Kannan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court