HARSH GROVER Vs. H S BAJAJ AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (i) This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the orders of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 22.1.2013. There are two orders dated 22.1.2013.

(2.) The main petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act on the ground of non-payment of rent was filed pursuant to the legal notice dated 5.9.2006 by which rent at Rs.300/- per month was claimed from 1.1.2004 to April, 2005. In the written statement which was filed by the petitioner/tenant, there was no dispute with respect to relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, rate of rent and the period of arrears. The defence of the petitioner/tenant on merits was that the petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs.4,800/- from 1.1.2004 to April, 2005 in proceedings under Section 31 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934 and which proceedings were withdrawn because they were not maintainable in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Atma Ram Vs. Shakuntala Rani, 2005 7 SCC 211. Thereafter the amount of rent of Rs.4,800/- from 1.1.2004 to April, 2005 was deposited in a petition under Section 27 of the Act, and which deposit it was pleaded by the petitioner/tenant should therefore be taken as compliance of the notice dated 5.9.2006 claiming arrears of rent from 1.1.2004.

(3.) The petitioner/tenant after filing of the written statement did not appear and was proceeded exparte. The respondent/landlord examined himself and proved his case. Since the petitioner/defendant was proceeded exparte, the case of the deposit under Section 27 of the Act was not proved and hence the petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act was decreed on 2.6.2010 by directing deposit of rent from 1.1.2004 at Rs.300/- per month within one month in terms of Section 15(1) of the Act. As stated above, in case the tenant deposits the arrears of rent as per Section 15(1) of the Act within one month of passing of the final judgment under Section 14(1)(a) read with Section 15(1) of the Act, then, such a tenant would be entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act and the tenant will not be evicted in such a case. If the arrears of rent are however not deposited pursuant to the final judgment alongwith the concomitant order under Section 15(1) of the Act, the tenant does not get the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act and such a tenant is liable to be evicted.