Quashed

(O&M)Narinder Kumar v. Ludhiana Central Cooperative Store

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Sept 2012CR/3418/1991

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order of eviction passed against a tenant for non-payment of undetermined rent. Following a Supreme Court precedent, the court directed that eviction could only follow after a final adjudication of arrears. The tenant was directed to pay a specific monthly rental rate, and the eviction order was set aside pending compliance.

What did the court decide?

The order of eviction passed was set aside. The tenant was directed to pay rent at `600/- per month from 01.12.1981 till date within 8 weeks; failure to do so would restore the eviction order.

(O&M)Narinder Kumar Vs Ludhiana Central… — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

[ 1 ]

¶2

CR No.3418 of 1991(O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CR No.3418 of 1991(O&M) Date of Decision: 06.09.2012

¶5

Narinder Kumar son of Kulwant Rai through his attorney, his wife, Smt. Santosh Rani c/o Shop No.72, New Market, known as Super Bazar, Mela Singh Road, Ludhiana.

¶6

... Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Ludhiana Central Co-operative Consumer Stores Ltd. near Local Bus Stand, G.T. Road, Ludhiana under liquidation through its General Manager.

¶9

... Respondent

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶11

Present:Mr. S.K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate for Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate, for the respondent.

¶13

¶14

1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO

¶15

2.To be referred to the reporters or not? NO

¶16

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO

¶17

K. KANNAN, J. (Oral)

¶18

The revision petition is at the instance of the tenant. The order of eviction has been passed on the non-payment of rent. The case has been decided before the decision of the

¶19

Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan v. M/s Jagdamba

¶20

Industrial Corporation, 2002(5) SCC 440 . The Supreme

¶21

Court has summarized its finding in Para 30 and sub-para nos.

¶22

4 to 6 could be relevant in this case:

¶23

[ 2 ]

¶24

CR No.3418 of 1991(O&M)

¶25

“ Para 30 sub-para 4 . On the failure of the tenant to comply, nothing remains to be done and an order for eviction shall follow. If the tenant makes compliance, the inquiry shall continue for finally adjudicating upon the dispute as to the arrears of rent in the light of the contending pleas raised by the landlord and the tenant before the Controller. (emphasis supplied).

¶26

sub-para 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 for eviction.

¶27

sub para 6 . While exercising discretion for affording the tenant an opportunity of making good the deficit, one of the relevant factors to be taken into consideration by the Controller would be, whether the tenant has paid or tendered with substantial regularity the rent falling due month by month during the

¶28

[ 3 ]

¶29

CR No.3418 of 1991(O&M)

¶30

pendency of the proceedings.”

¶31

The tenant could not have been evicted without a provision for determination of the rent payable. It was not already determined and the amount determined at the final proceedings shall be directed to be paid by the tenant within a particular time and if only there had been any non-compliance of the direction, eviction would follow. The tenant shall become liable to pay @ `600/- per month from 01.12.1981 till date after giving due credit to all the admitted payments made by the tenant during the said period. A calculation shall be made and accompany the tender within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The order of eviction already passed shall be inoperative and taken as set aside on the tender made as above. If the amount is not paid within the stipulated period, the order of eviction already passed shall stand restored and the landlord would be entitled to execute the same in the same case.

¶32

The civil revision is disposed of as above.

¶33

( K. KANNAN ) JUDGE

¶34

6^th September, 2012 Rajan

(O&M)Narinder Kumar v. Ludhiana Central Cooperative Store

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M)Narinder Kumar v. Ludhiana Central Cooperative Store

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Kuamr Vs Pawan Devi

Paramjit Singh Vs Jagjit Singh and Others

Subhash Singh Raghav Vs Tarun Kumar Raghava and Anr.

Shivani Vs Rahul Bansal

Matadin Vs State of Haryana

Mahabir & Others Vs State of Haryana