HARPREET SINGH Vs. PAMELA SAHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in the present petition is to the order dated 2.12.2013, passed by the appellate authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1974, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for extension of period for payment of mesne profits, has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that against the order of eviction dated 8.8.2013, passed by the Rent Controller, the petitioner preferred an appeal, in which notice was issued to the respondent landlord on 24.8.2013 for 20.9.2013. On that date, eviction of the petitioner from the premises in dispute was stayed subject to the condition that the petitioner clears the arrears of rent within a period of one month from 20.9.2013 and continue depositing future rent on or before 10th of every month. As there was default in payment of rent, the application was filed seeking extension thereof. It was submitted that as on the date of eviction, the petitioner had already paid the rent upto July, 2013, a demand draft had been got prepared on 5.8.2013 pertaining to rent for the month of August, 2013. The same was offered to the counsel for the respondent, but he refused to accept the same. Even rent for the month of September, 2013, for which demand draft was got prepared on 6.9.2013, was also offered but was not accepted by the landlord or her counsel. The rent for the month of October, 2013 was offered in cash but not accepted. Accordingly, two demand drafts were got prepared on 13.11.2013 for payment of rent for the months of October and November, 2013. Even the same were not accepted. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, the petitioner filed application before the court below for extension of time for deposit of the amount in court as inadvertently the same could not be deposited in time as directed vide order dated 20.9.2013, though the petitioner had got the demand drafts prepared well within time. The error was bona fide, hence, the default/delay deserved to be condoned and the time for deposit of rent in court should have been extended.

(2.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. It is a case in which the petitioner was directed to be evicted from the premises in dispute vide order dated 8.8.2013 passed by the Rent Controller. In appeal, eviction of the petitioner was stayed on 20.9.2013 subject to clearance of arrears of rent within a period of one month from the date of order and deposit of future rent before 10th of every month. The order was passed in the presence of counsels for the parties, hence, to claim that the petitioner was not in knowledge thereof cannot be accepted. Mere contention that the same was offered to the landlord or her counsel cannot be accepted as the ploy to condone the delay or extend the period. It is claimed that a demand draft was got prepared on 5.8.2013 pertaining to the rent for the period of August, 2013 and on 6.9.2013 a demand draft was got prepared for rent for the month of September, 2013. However, the fact remains that when the order of eviction was stayed subject to clearance of arrears of rent on 20.9.2013, the aforesaid two demand drafts though claimed to have been got prepared by the petitioner but were not handed over in court. Even if later on the petitioner had been getting the demand drafts prepared and keeping the same with him cannot be said to be a good ground to condone the default and extend the period. The bona fides of the petitioner are missing, as it cannot be claimed that the petitioner was not in knowledge of the order passed by the court, where it directed for deposit of the amount in court and not for payment to the landlord. Even the claim that when the rent was offered to the landlord or her counsel, they had refused to accept the same is of no consequence. For the reasons mentioned above, 1 do not find any merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.