RAJ KUMAR Vs. PARMINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The impugned order dated 23.11.2010 does not show any legal infirmity. The Petitioner, who is a tenant in the premises in question, was facing eviction proceedings on the only ground of non-payment of rent. He agreed to pay the rent to the Respondent and made a statement in the Court by giving a cheque to the Respondent satisfying the demand of the arrears of rent and also stated that in the eventuality of the cheque being dishonoured he shall be liable to be evicted. The cheque was dishonoured. The Petitioner did not pay the rent even thereafter. The ex-parte ejectment proceedings against the Petitioner were passed on 16.7.2009.

(2.) At this stage to consider the case of the Petitioner would be to defeat the rights of the Respondent. Besides, the bona fides of the Petitioner are seriously in question as he has defeated the rights of the Respondent and has also tried to hoodwink the Court by furnishing a cheque which was not intended to be honoured. That apart, the non-payment of rent by a tenant shakes the very foundation of relationship of a landlord and tenant and such an action without any justifiable cause cannot be appreciated. The Court is also of the opinion that the impugned order is completely justified. There is thus no reason to interfere in the instant petition in the absence of any jurisdictional error committed by the Rent Controller.