MOHAN SINGH Vs. MANMOHAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER (tenant) is in revision under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the concurrent findings returned by the Authorities below whereby the eviction application filed by the respondent (landlord) has been allowed by the learned Rent Controller, Kharar vide order dated 04.02.2013(P -7) on the ground of non payment of provisional rent assessed by the Rent Controller and the findings thereof were affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority, Mohali vide its judgment dated 22.08.2013(P -9). In brief, facts of the case are that respondent (landlord) filed a ejectment application on various grounds which were contested by the petitioner (tenant). Learned Rent Controller provisionally assessed the rent on 12.10.2012(P -6) and fixed the next date as 30.11.2012. However, on the said date rent was not paid by the petitioner (tenant) and on his request the matter was adjourned to 11.12.2012. Even on 11.12.2012 the rent was not paid by the tenant, therefore, the respondent (landlord) moved an application for eviction of the tenant. The case was adjourned for arguments on the said application on 10.01.2013 but on the said date the tenant filed an application for tendering the cheque dated 10.01.2013 for Rs. 9400/ - in respect of arrears of rent. Said Cheque was never accepted by the respondent (landlord) and consequently the learned Rent Controller passed the eviction order on 4.2.2013 by applying the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan & Ors. Vs. M/s. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation & Ors. : 2003(2) CCC 361 SC.

(2.) ON an appeal being preferred by the tenant before the learned Appellate Authority, Mohali, the Authority by observing the above mentioned facts as well as the settled position of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (Supra) dismissed the said appeal. Hence the present revision petition.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner (tenant) has argued that petitioner had entered into an agreement to sell and, therefore, his status as tenant had changed and thus the present eviction petition was not maintainable. It is further argued that pursuant to the assessment of provisional rent, tenant had tendered rent under registered cover but the same was not accepted by the landlord and, therefore, the order of assessment of provisional rent stood complied with and, therefore, eviction order could not be passed.