Tenant challenged eviction order based on non-payment of rent arrears. Court held request for extension denied per Supreme Court precedent, affirming eviction as natural consequence of default. Revision petition dismissed.
Prayer for extension of time to pay arrears denied; eviction order dismissed.
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.
CR 5963/2013(O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR 5963/2013(O&M) Date of decision:05/10/2013
Subhash Kumar
.............Petitioner
v.
Sohan Singh
.............Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present:Mr.JC Kapoor,Advocate for the petitioner/tenant.
Jaswant Singh,J.(Oral)
Tenant is in revision against the concurrent judgments passed by both the Authorities below whereby the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh vide judgment dated 23.7.2013 ordered his eviction from the demised premises comprising basement measuring 26' x 26' situated on Plot No.136, Mann Hotel, Sector 52, Village Kajheri,Chandigarh due to non-payment of arrears of provisional rent within the stipulated period and the findings affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 23.8.2013.
The relationship of the parties as landlord and tenant in view of the written rent note is not denied. However, the tenant disputed the rate of rent by claiming that the same was Rs.8000/- per month instead of Rs.25,000/- as stipulated in the rent note. The landlord filed an eviction petition claiming arrears of rent w.e.f. May 2009 till the date of filing of the eviction petition. The learned Rent
Joshi Rajinder Prashad 2013.10.05 15:32 I attest to the accuracy of this Order. High Court, Chandigarh.
2
CR 5963/2013(O&M)
Controller, Chandigarh vide order dated 26.7.2012 assessed the provisional rent @ Rs.8000/- per month and the tenant was required to pay the arrears on 27.9.2012. The landlord filed CR No.6250/2012 assailing the order 26.7.2012 by claiming that the tenant had admitted that he was paying rent @ Rs.18,000/- per month, as per his own separate suit for injunction against the landlord. In view of the same this Court allowed the aforesaid revision petition of the landlord vide order dated 8.4.2013 by directing learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh to pass a fresh order in accordance with law and the provisional rent already paid by the tenant was to be adjusted.
The learned Rent Controller then passed a fresh order dated 7.5.2013 assessing the provisional rent @ Rs.18,000/- per month as rent. The rent paid @ Rs.8000/- per month from May 2009 to 26.7.2012 was adjusted towards such fresh assessment. The date of payment fixed was 31.5.2013.
The tenant by filing CR 3424/2013 assailed the order dated 7.5.2013 (P4) whereby the rent paid even after adjustment of Rs.8000/per month was not taken into account by the learned Rent Controller. This Court vide order dated 29.5.2013 while issuing notice of motion directed the payment of rent @ Rs.18,000/- per month w.e.f. May 2009 till 31.3.2010 to be totally exempted and further for payment of the remaining amount in terms of the order dated 7.5.2013 meaning thereby the remaining amount was required to be paid by the tenant by 31.5.2013.
It is not in dispute that the learned Rent Controller, thereafter granted several opportunities to the tenant for payment of the arrears of provisional rent as assessed vide order dated 7.5.2013 modified vide order dated 29.5.2013 passed by this Court till 23.7.2013. Since the tenant even by that date had not complied with the orders, the eviction order dated 23.7.2013 was passed in view of the mandate of law laid down in Rakesh Wadhawan v. M/s Jagdamba
Joshi Rajinder Prashad 2013.10.05 15:32 I attest to the accuracy of this Order. High Court, Chandigarh.
3
CR 5963/2013(O&M)
Industrial Corporation , 2002(2)PLR 370. The findings of the Rent Controller were affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh.
Learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant at the time of hearing today restricts his prayer for grant of some time to pay the arrears of provisional rent.
The request of the learned counsel is not liable to be accepted in view of the categoric direction passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court as interpreted by this Court in a Division Bench judgement of this Court in Rajan v Rakesh Kumar , (2010) 1 RCR (Rent) 386 (DB) whereby it is held that no extension of time can be granted for depositing the arrears of provisional rent after the expiry of the date and event of eviction is natural consequence of non-payment of such arrears of rent.
In view of the above, no ground for interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction is made out.
Dismissed.
05.10.2013. joshi
(Jaswant Singh) Judge
Joshi Rajinder Prashad 2013.10.05 15:32 I attest to the accuracy of this Order. High Court, Chandigarh.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether tenant is entitled to extension of time to pay arrears of rent before eviction.
Whether revision is maintainable when eviction order complied with Supreme Court directions.
Whether non-payment of arrears mandates immediate eviction without further notice.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rakesh Wadhawan v. M/s Jagdamba Industrial CorporationApplied¶21
Rakesh Wadhawan v. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, 2002(2)PLR 370
Rajan v Rakesh KumarRelied on¶27
Rajan v Rakesh Kumar, (2010) 1 RCR (Rent) 386 (DB)
Subhash Kumar
Sohan Singh
Jaswant Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
