MOHINDER SINGH Vs. SWARAN KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present revision petition filed under Sec. 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is to the order dated 17.7.2014 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh whereby eviction has been ordered on the ground of non payment of provisional rent assessed on 13.5.2014. Challenge has also been laid to the judgment of the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh dated 20.10.2014 whereby the appeal has been dismissed.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh was an exparte order and the counsel was not present on the said date. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the amount of the rent as assessed.

(3.) A perusal of the record would go on to show that through the petition filed under Sec. 13 of the Act ejectment was sought on the ground of non payment of rent. The Landlord was claiming rent at the rate of 4000.00 per month whereas the tenant was alleging 1400.00 per month. The arrears were alleged from 1.7.2003. Accordingly, the rent was assessed at 1400.00 from from 1.7.2003 to May, 2014 and a total sum of 2,44,922.00 was to be paid on 17.7.2014. However, on the said date counsel for the petitioner failed to put in appearance. The trial Court noticed that there was no stay of the earlier order dated 13.5.2014 and accordingly in view of the Division judgment of this court in Rajan @ Raj Kumar Vs. Rakesh Kumar 2010 (2) PLR 201 and the judgment of the Apex Court Rakesh Wadhawan & others Vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation & others 2003(2) CCC 361 directed the eviction. An appeal was filed on 5.9.2014 and the same had been dismissed after noticing that the title of the landlord is being denied since there was some litigation was pending with the Chandigarh Housing Board. Accordingly, keeping in view the binding precedent mentioned above and placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Sudhir Kumar Vs. Kuldeep Singh 2010(4) PLR 658, the appeal has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh and the tenant has been directed to hand over vacant possession immediately vide order dated 20.10.2014. The said order was also passed almost two months back. Counsel for the petitioner has now tried to submit that he is willing to deposit the arrears of rent. 5. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the bonafide of the tenant is totally lacking. No effort was made to deposit the amount when the appeal was filed to show that the tenant was not responsible for any lapse. No application was filed before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh that counsel could not be put in appearance on 17.7.2014. The law has already been settled beyond any anvil of doubt. 6. In M/s. Nihal Singh Motors and others Vs. Shama Malhotra etc. 2004 (3) PLR 389 also, it has been held that no opportunity can be granted once the tenant fails to deposit the rent on the date fixed. 7. Thereafter, in Sanjeet Singh Vs. Mohali Motor Finance Co. and another, 2011 (3) PLR 15, it has been held that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to extend the period of time of the provisionally assessed rent without any reason and on failure, eviction would have to automatically follow. The relevant observations read thus:-