SURINDER KUMAR Vs. LEELA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The questions of law involved in this revision petition are as under :-

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the landlady filed a petition seeking eviction of her tenants from the demised premises bearing Shop No.1094, Morigate, Manimajra, U.T. Chandigarh, which was allegedly rented out to them by way of a lease deed dated 03.12.2004 @ Rs. 4,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.12.2004 to 30.11.2005, @ Rs. 4,200/- per month w.e.f. 01.12.2005 to 30.11.2006, @ Rs. 4,410/- per month w.e.f. 01.12.2006 to 30.11.2007 and @ Rs. 4,630/- per month w.e.f. 01.12.2007 to 30.11.2008. The ejectment was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent amounting to Rs. 47,320/- up to 30.11.2007, w.e.f. 01.12.2007 to February, 2008 and also w.e.f. 01.12.2008 onwards. The tenants admitted that the lease deed was executed for a period of 3 years, but they denied the allegation of non-payment of rent and had rather submitted that the rent amounting to Rs. 52,000/- was tendered in an earlier rent petition and as such, there was no arrears of rent which could be claimed by the landlady.

(3.) The learned Rent Controller, vide his order dated 17.12.2010, assessed the provisional rent @ Rs. 4,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.12.2008 till February, 2010 alongwith interest @ 6% per annum and costs of Rs. 1,000/- which was ordered to be tendered by the tenants on 28.03.2010, which fell on a Sunday, therefore, the learned Rent Controller took up the case on 29.03.2010 as it was automatically adjourned for the next working day in terms of Rule 4 of Chapter 1, Part K, Volume 1 of the Rules & Orders of Punjab & Haryana High Court [for short "Rules & Orders"]. The counsel for the tenants appeared on 29.03.2010, but the rent was not tendered, rather the extension of time was prayed on the pretext that a close relative of the tenants has expired. The landlady opposed the prayer of the tenants and alleged that the case is not required to be adjourned because the effective date of hearing, which falls on a holiday, is the next working day and since the tenants are not prepared with the amount of rent assessed by the learned Rent Controller, therefore, they are indulging into dillydallying tactics. The learned Rent Controller observed that the Court has no jurisdiction to extend the time for the purpose of tendering the rent in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan v. M/s. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, 2002 1 RCR(Rent) 514 and as such, the order of eviction was passed on 29.03.2010. The tenants then filed statutory appeal before the learned Appellate Authority which was also dismissed on the ground that in case of non-tendering of the provisionally assessed rent on the date fixed, the learned Rent Controller had no other alternative but to pass the eviction order in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan's case and also the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Rajan alias Raj Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar, 2010 1 RCR(Rent) 386. It was also observed by the learned Appellate Authority that the tenants had not disclosed the date of death of their relative (father-in-law).