SATISH KUMAR Vs. ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No.12470-CII of 2012 Allowed as prayed for. CR No.2901 of 2012

(2.) TENANT Satish Kumar has filed this revision petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short, the Act) having failed before both the Authorities below. Ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Act was filed by Jagdish Raj (since deceased and represented by respondents No.1 to 5) and Iqbal Singh-respondent No.6 herein against the tenant-petitioner seeking his ejectment from the demised premises on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent. The landlords alleged that rate of rent was `3,000/- per month and that the tenant had not paid the rent since May, 2005. CR No.2901 of 2012 (O&M) -2-

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the tenant had fallen ill and remained admitted to hospital since 09.02.2009 till 13.02.2009 and, therefore, could not appear before the Rent Controller on 12.02.2009 the date fixed there and the tenant is ready to pay all the arrears of rent along with interest and, therefore, ejectment order should be set aside. The contention cannot be accepted. It is admitted fact that the tenant did not pay the arrears of provisional rent along with costs and interest as assessed by the Rent Controller on the first date of hearing i.e. 12.02.2009 fixed by the Rent Controller after provisionally assessing the arrears of rent. Consequently there was no option with the Rent Controller but to pass the impugned ejectment CR No.2901 of 2012 (O&M) order. No fault, therefore, can be found with the impugned order passed by the Rent Controller as upheld by the Appellate Authority. The plea of the tenant that he remained admitted in hospital and, therefore, could not tender the rent can not be accepted to set aside the ejectment order on merits. Once the arrears of rent remained unpaid on first date of hearing after being provisionally assessed, ejectment order had to follow. On the ground of alleged ailment of the tenant, he could have moved the Rent Controller for setting aside the ex parte ejectment order and thereupon his said plea could be adjudicated upon by the Rent Controller in accordance with law. However, instead of doing so, the tenant challenged the ex parte ejectment order of the Rent Controller by filing appeal on merits. However, on merits of the ejectment order, no fault can be found with the same because admittedly the arrears of rent were not tendered or paid by the tenant on the first date of hearing after provisional assessment. Once the right accrued to the landlords for ejectment of the tenant on the ground of non-payment or arrears, the said right cannot be undone by offer of the tenant to pay the arrears of rent now. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision petition. There is no perversity, illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error in impugned orders of the Authorities below. Revision petition is meritless and is, therefore, dismissed in limine.