STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. VED PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tenant State Bank of India, petitioner herein, had faced petition for its eviction from the premises in dispute on the ground of non-payment of rent @ Rs.8,000/- per month since 18.4.1999. Finding fault with the stand of the landlord and holding the petition of eviction to be devoid of any merit, the same was dismissed on 8.8.2007 by the Rent Controller, Nabha. Appeal preferred by the landlord was adjudicated by the Appellate Authority, Patiala under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter mentioned as the Rent Act) on 4.8.2009 wherein reversing the impugned orders of the Rent Controller, accepting the petition of the landlord, finding it to be a case of short tender by the tenant making a detailed order of assessment of arrears of rent with interest etc. the tenant-bank had been called upon to make up deficiency in the short tender. Relevant operative portion of the order of the Appellate Authority is as below:

(2.) Rather than complying with the order of the Appellate Authority, the tenant-bank instead made an application under Section 31 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934 (hereinafter mentioned as the Indebtedness Act). The Rent Controller noticed that the tenant-bank had not tendered the rent in terms of the order of the Appellate Authority and thus tender of arrears of rent before the Rent Controller had continued to be the short. Dismissing the said application of the tenant-bank on 9.10.2010, it was held that the tenant-bank was at fault in making compliance with the orders of the Appellate Authority. Relevant portion of the impugned order (Annexure P-4) for ready reference is reproduced as below:

(3.) Stand of the tenant-bank in this revision petition is that the bank had never put the payment of deficiency in arrears on hold and has rather been always ready and willing to comply with the order of the Appellate Authority. However, it has been claimed that the Appellate Authority did not comply with the law laid down in Rakesh Wadhawan Versus M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and others, 2003 2 CivCC 361 whereby it is the duty of the Rent Controller to make assessment of the arrears of rent and then to afford an opportunity to the tenant to make such deposit and only on failure of tenant to comply with such order, eviction can follow.