JOGINDER SINGH Vs. KULDIP CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CIVIL Revision Nos. 2659 of 1986, 1200, 1262, 1397, 3388, 3488 of 1987, 1357, 1474 and 2594 of 1988 are being taken up together for hearing because in all these cases the learned counsel appearing for the tenants rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Rakesh Wadhawan and others v. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and others, 2002(1) RCR (Rent) 514 (SC) : JT 2002 (Suppl. 1) S.C. 11, for submitting that in view of this judgment, this Court is obliged to remand these cases back to the Rent Controller with the direction that he should determine the arrears of rent along with interest payable thereon and the costs required to be paid by the tenant and thereafter afford an opportunity to him for making a tender. In case the tenant does not make the tender within the time specified then the Court would be obliged to make a final determination regarding arrears of rent, interest and costs and while passing the ejectment order make implementation of the same contingent upon the tenant tendering the rent within a time to be specified by the Court. For these submission, the learned counsel rely upon paras 29 and 30 of the judgment, which read as under :-

(2.) THE learned counsel for the landlords do not, for a moment, contest the inferences sought to be drawn from the aforesaid judgment but they submit that in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra) the Hon'ble Judges of the Apex Court have not considered the purport of two earlier judgments handed down by co-equal Benches in M/s Rubber Houese v. M/s Excellsior Needle Industries Pvt. Ltd., 1989(2) RCR (Rent) 530 (SC) : JT 1989(4) S.C. 488 and Rajinder Kumar Joshi v. Veena Rani, 1990(2) RCR (Rent) 573 (SC) : JT 1990(4) S.C. 50, according to which no obligation is cast upon the Rent Controller to make such preliminary assessments regarding the arrears of rent and in case the tenant chooses not to tender the rent as claimed, he runs risk of being ejected on the ground of short tender. In M/s Rubber House's case (supra) their lordships were interpreting the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control or Rent and Eviction) Act 1973 and had observed as under :-

(3.) ON the basis of these pronouncements, the learned counsel for the landlords state that as the aforesaid judgments have not been considered by the Apex Court while disposing of Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra) and the strength of all the three Benches is the same, this Court is obliged to follow the guidelines laid down in M/s Indo Swiss Time Limited, Dundahera v. Umrao and others, 1981 P.L.R. 335, which are to the following effect :-