PARAMJIT KAUR Vs. PARKASH JEWELLERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Sec. 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the 1949 Act') impugning the order dtd. 19/4/2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by Rent Controller, Jalandhar, in Rent Petition No.202 of 2014 titled "Paramjit Kaur v. Parkash Jewellers", whereby application filed by the petitioner/landlord for ejectment of the respondent/tenant on account of non-deposit of provisional assessed rent, has been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts relevant for the disposal of the present revision petition are that petitioner/landlord filed a petition under Sec. 13 of the 1949 Act for ejectment of the respondent/tenant from the shops shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the petition, situated at Gujrat Complex, Rainak Bazar, Jalandhar, on the ground of arrears of rent. Learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar, vide order dtd. 19/1/2018 provisionally assessed the rent and directed the respondent/tenant to make the payment on the next date of hearing i.e. 19/3/2018. Respondent/tenant challenged the said order by way of appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was dismissed vide order dtd. 1/9/2018. However, on 19/3/2018 respondent/tenant did not deposit the provisional rent as assessed by the Rent Controller vide order dtd. 19/1/2018. Consequently, petitioner/landlord filed an application for passing of ejectment order against the respondent/tenant for non-tendering the provisionally assessed rent. The Rent Controller vide impugned order dtd. 19/4/2022 dismissed the application of the petitioner/landlord and directed that the demand draft already tendered by the respondent-tenant on 28/3/2018 be re-validated on or before 2/5/2022.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Rent Controller has wrongly dismissed the application of the petitioner for ejectment of the respondent for non-payment of provisional rent on the first date of hearing inasmuch as no stay was operating against order dtd. 19/1/2018 whereby provisional rent was assessed by the Rent Controller. He further contended that respondent/tenant was liable to tender arrears of provisional rent on the first date of hearing after the date of assessment of the same i.e. on 19/3/2018. He further contended that respondent/tenant gave a wrong statement before the Rent Controller with regard to stay of the order of provisional assessment of rent and got the case adjourned. He further contended that impugned order passed by the Rent Controller is erroneous and not sustainable in the eyes of law. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in Rajan alias Raj Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar, 2010(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 386; Anil Kumar v. Ghanshyam Dass, 2012(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 153; Dharam Vir v. Raj Kumar Book Binder, 2012(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 546 and Vijay Singla v. Lajwanti (since deceased through her LRs) and others, 2022(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 247.