SHIV CHARAN KAUR Vs. SURJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COURTS are arenas where parties are expected to participate in the bouts yielding in results. However, present is such a case, where one after the other, there were bouts between the Sand lady and her tenant in different Courts and even after expiry of years, they are at square one. All this happened on account of an illegal order passed by the Rent Controller purporting to finally disposing of an application filed by the landlady under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') as applicable in Chandigarh as far back as August 28, 1986. Vide this order, ejectment of the tenant Shivcharan Kaur was ordered from House No. 3055, Sector-20/d, Chandigarh. This order was challenged before the Appellate Authority; wherein' on the basis of a compromise order of ejectment was passed and the appeal was disposed of vide order dated April 29, 198 7. On fulfillment of certain conditions of the compromise, the case was to stand as remanded to the Rent Controller for fresh decision after allowing opportunity to the tenant for filing the written statement and thereafter opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. This order was challenged in the High Court in the Revision Petition, which was decided on August 11, 1987 by D. V. Sehgal, J. The order of the Appellate Authority was set aside as the Appellate Authority had no power of remanding the case even on agreement of the parties. The matter went back to the Appellate Authority. Subsequently under orders dated February 24, 1989 passed by G. R. Majithia, J. the appeal was withdrawn from the Court of Additional District Judge, Appellate Authority and taken up by the District Judge, the Appellate Authority. On March 31. 1989, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. Hence the present Revision Petition by the tenant

(2.) AT this stage, it may further be pointed out that during the pendency of the aforesaid litigation, there were executing proceedings. Objections were filed to the execution by Sh Baldev Singh Bhalur husband of Smt. Shivcharan Kaur, the tenant, claiming himself to be the tenant of the disputed house. These objections were dismissed, holding that Sh. Baldev Singh had failed to prove his tenancy, This matter again came up to the High Court in Civil Revision No. 3297 of 1987, decided by G. C. Mital, J on November 23, 1988 by affirming the order of the Executing Court that Sh Baldev Singh had failed to prove his tenancy. Some of the observations in this order were mad with respect to the order passed by D. V. Sehgal, J. in earlier Civil Revision.

(3.) THE ejectment of Smt. Shivcharan Kaur the tenant, was claimed by the landlady Smt Sirjtt Kaur, inter alia on the ground of non- payment of rent The tenancy started w. e. f. November 3, 1983 under a Rent Note and it was for a period of four years Monthly rent fixed was Rs. 2200/ -. The rent was payable in advance before' the 10th of every month. On doing so, a rebate of Rs. 200/- was allowed The water and electricity charges were separately payable. The rent was required to be deposited in the bank account of the landlady. Uptill November, 1983 the rent was duly paid Thus, arrears were claimed for the period December 1, 1983 to April 30. 1986. It was further mentioned that earlier an ejectment application was filed on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent for the period December 1, 1984 to September 30, 1985 and the ejectment application subsequently filed was without prejudice of the rights of the landlady to the earlier application