MADAN GOPAL MITTAL Vs. NATH BASSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is in revision. The landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short "the Act"] for seeking eviction of the tenant from the second floor of House 1406, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh on the ground of non-payment of rent w.e.f. 01.08.2003. The tenant filed the written statement. Vide order dated 07.09.2007, the learned Rent Controller assessed the provisional rent @ Rs. 4,000/- per month from 01.08.2005 to 30.09.2007. The tenant was asked to make the payment of provisionally assessed rent on 13.10.2007. On the said date, the payment of rent was not made rather the tenant moved an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short "CPC"] for enlargement of time, which was dismissed on 30.10.2007 and the case was fixed for 31.10.2007 for the arguments in the main petition. On that day, the tenant moved an application for review which was also dismissed by separate order dated 02.11.2007.

(2.) Since the tenant did not make the payment of provisionally assessed rent, therefore, the learned Rent Controller, while relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan and others v. M/s. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and others, 2002 AIR(SC) 2004, allowed the eviction petition. Aggrieved against the order of eviction, the tenant filed the statutory appeal which too was dismissed on 07.01.2008.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the arrears of rent is the rent which was due on the date of filing of the application and not the rent which may have become due subsequently. It is submitted that the rent for a particular month will not become due till the last date of the month and if an application is filed during that month, the tenant is not bound to deposit the rent of that month. He has also argued that the learned Rent Controller did not assess the exact amount of provisional rent in terms of the decision of this Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh and another v. Brijinder Bhardwaj and another, 2011 1 RCR(Rent) 319 . It is, thus, argued that the impugned orders are patently illegal and are liable to be set aside.