SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. VIJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision is against the determination of provisional rent at the rate of Rs. 4500/ - from 10.12.2006. The contention of the landlord was that the tenancy was in favour of the first respondent in a rent petition and the second respondent was a sub tenant. The tenant and the so called sub tenant who have been directed to make the payment are in revision before this Court contending that the entitlement to collect the rent for the landlord must have obtained only against the first respondent and the Court could not have directed a payment against both the respondents. I cannot accept this contention for the claim by the second respondent and the so called sub tenant was that he was associated in business only with the first respondent and that he was not a sub tenant. If there was no sub tenancy and he is associated in business he has two options or either not to pay the amount and look to the first respondent to make the payment and if such payment is not made, to suffer the consequences of summary eviction; The other option is, he will be at liberty to make the payment to protect himself from an ejectment and work out his own rights against the first respondent -tenant. It shall be essentially a matter of internal arrangement amongst the respondents in the rent petition. If the Court had not specifically directed the liability only against the first respondent in the petition it was not any act which could be injurious for the second respondent in the rent petition. I cannot therefore find any error in the order of the Court. Learned counsel has further grievance that their own suit for an injunction was filed on 4.6.2010 on an averment that no amount was payable till the date of the suit. It was only subsequent there to that the landlord filed his own petition for eviction on 17.9.2010 on an averment that the tenant has not paid the rent on 10.12.2006. If the tenancy had commenced on 18.5.2010 as contended by the landlord, according to the learned counsel it was not possible that the landlord would not have taken action if the tenant was in default from December 2006 itself. If there were no rent receipts or documentary evidence of payment of rent from 10.12.2006, the Rent Controller would be perfectly justified in making a direction for provisional payment from that day onwards. There can be no presumption that the tenant ought to have paid if the landlord had not taken any action immediately. It will be a matter for consideration at the trial of the rent petition and cannot be pre judged now. I will therefore not find any error in the direction given by the Rent Controller.

(2.) THE counsel for the respondent says that the tenant has not fully paid the rent which was accrued subsequently. The liability to pay rent shall subsist every month during the entire period of pendency of the proceedings. He cannot force a landlord to file petition for every period when he complains of non -payment. The tenant that wants an adjudication on merits must conduct himself in such a way that he leaves no room for any lapse on his part. The revision petitioners jointly or any one of them shall pay the rent that has accrued subsequent to the filing of the petition also without any default. The landlord shall be at liberty to apply to the Rent Controller for any direction if the tenant will be at default during the course of the proceedings. The order already passed is maintained. The revision is dismissed. This Court had allowed the landlord to receive 50% of the amount which was deposited by the revision petitioner. The balance of the amount in deposit shall also be released in favour of the landlord.