Disposed

Rajbir Singh Sodhi v. Fatehpal Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Mar 2013CR/1592/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court sustained a revision petition challenging an eviction order based on rent non-payment. The judge held that failure to pay provisional rent justified eviction but granted the petitioner four months to vacate upon filing an undertaking to pay dues and future rent as directed by the Rent Controller.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed four months to vacate premises upon filing an undertaking to pay all dues and future rent as per Rent Controller's directions.

Rajbir Singh Sodhi Vs Fatehpal Singh — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CR No. 1592 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶4

CR No. 1592 of 2013 Date of decision March 11 , 2013

¶5

Rajbir Singh Sodhi s/o S.Amarjit Singh Sodhi

¶6

....... Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Fatehpal Singh s/o Surinder Singh

¶9

........ Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶11

Present:Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

¶13

K. Kannan, J (oral).

¶14

The revision is against the order directing ejectment passed by the Court in concurrence with the order passed by the Rent Controller. The tenant claimed to be in possession of the ground and two floors above and for the non-payment of rent provisionally assessed by the Rent Controller as payable within the stipulated period the Court ordered eviction and in the said order the Court had merely directed eviction of the ground floor. The appeal was against the order challenging the correctness contending inter alia that there could not have a splitting up of tenancy and the order of ejectment could not have been partial and therefore, the entire order was erroneous. The Appellate Court understood the order as meaning ejectment of the whole premises and ordered eviction accordingly. It did not therefore interfere with the order of eviction already passed for the failure of the tenant to comply with the

¶15

CR No. 1592 of 2013

¶16

¶17

direction regarding the provisional rent by applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation 2002 1 RCR (Rent) 514 . This Court has also had an occasion to consider this judgment (Division Bench) where it has observed that if the assessment of provisional rent itself is not a subject of challenge in Appellate Forum then the noncompliance of the direction would automatically result in the tenant being considered as liable to be evicted forthwith. I, therefore put it to the counsel whether there had been any ground urged in the appeal that the assessment of provisional rent as had been made by the Rent Controller was in any way erroneous and that the direction could not have been issued. Counsel says that there is no challenge to the provisional assessment but the order of the Rent Controller was assailed only on the tenability fo the splitting up of tenancy and directing partial ejectment. I will not allow for consideration of the tenant's plea when there has been a failure of compliance of the directions for the appellant to pay the provisional rent. If the order of the Rent Controller was erroneous it was erroneous to the tenant's own benefit, in that it did not direct an ejectment of the whole building. This was corrected by the Appellate Court and justifiably so. I find no reason to interfere with the order of eviction already passed and I sustain the same.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he himself is building yet another house and that he would require six months time at least to vacate the premises. I have considered the plea and allow the tenant four month's time, provided that he gives

¶19

¶20

CR No. 1592 of 2013

¶21

an undertaking and file it to the Registry within one week from the date of the order that he will pay up all the amount that is due and payable as per the directions given by the Rent Controller on 19.7.2012 and continues to pay rent at the rate of `45,000/- at the due date of every month. The undertaking shall also incorporate specific admission that he will vacate the premises on the completion of four months from today. If the tenant does not give such an undertaking as directed, the order of eviction passed by the Courts below will become executable forthwith.

¶22

The revision petition is disposed of with the

¶23

above direction.

¶24

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE

¶25

March 11 ,2013 archana

Rajbir Singh Sodhi v. Fatehpal Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajbir Singh Sodhi v. Fatehpal Singh

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

Jawahar Lal and Ors. Vs Amit Sekhar and Ors.

Amrik Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Ram Pal Vs Om Parkash and Ors.

S K Ghai Vs M/S Kapson Agencies Pvt. Ltd.

Ramesh Kumar Vs Nanag and Ors.

(O&M) Land Acquisition Collector & Anothers Vs Bhuru @ Bhawar Singh & Anothers