SUNIL KUMAR Vs. SANTOSH DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenants' petition filed under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for brevity, 'the Act') challenging concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below holding that the tenant-petitioners have failed to pay the electricity charges which resulted into disconnection of supply of electricity and the tender of rent made without payment of electricity charges was not a valid tender. The evidence of the rate of rent in the form of house tax assessment register produced by the tenant-petitioners have not been accepted as a valid basis for assessing the rate of rent. The landlady-respondent has claimed rent at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- p.m. After scanning and analysing the entire evidence, the Appellate Authority has concluded that the rate of rent was Rs. 2,000/- p.m. by observing as under :-

(2.) ON the question, whether the Rent Controller had passed any provisional order of assessment by virtue of proviso to Section 13(2)(1) of the Act, the Appellate Authority held that the tenant-petitioners were given adequate time to deposit the rent on the basis of assessment of the rent at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- p.m. The Rent Controller furnished an opportunity to the tenant- petitioners on 30.1.2004 by passing a conditional order that the tenant- petitioners were to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- and the deficient amount was also required to be paid failing which they were required to surrender possession of the demised shop to the landlady-respondent. The aforementioned approach of the Rent Controller has been considered as sufficient compliance of Section 13(2)(1) of the Act as is evident from the following para :-

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel and perusing the impugned judgments, I am of the considered view that no room is left for interference in the impugned orders of ejectment passed against the tenant-petitioners. It has been concurrently found that a provisional order of assessment determining the rate of rent of Rs. 2,000/- was passed on 30.1.2004 by the Rent Controller calling upon the tenant-petitioners to make up the deficiency, failing which the landlady-respondent was to be given possession of the demised shop. It has also come on record that the tenant-petitioners did not comply with the provisional order of assessment by depositing the deficient amount and connection of electricity was permanently disconnected on 6.10.2001 when he did not deposit the electricity bills. The bills were paid only on 11.9.2002 during the pendency of ejectment petition which was filed on 9.11.2001. The landlady-respondent has proved on record that her deceased husband had always depicted the rental income from the demised shop at the rate of Rs. 2,000/-. She also proved on record the entries made in the assessment register showing the annual value and for that purpose alone the entries made in the assessment register of house tax have been considered by the Courts below. Therefore, there is no legal infirmity in the findings recorded by both the Courts below as the rate of rent of Rs. 2,000/- has been duly proved and it has also been proved that the tender made was deficient. The aforementioned deficiency could not be made up by the tenant-petitioners despite opportunity granted by order dated 30.1.2004. Order dated 30.1.2004 adequately meets the legal requirement as envisaged by the Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. Prem Lata, 2003(2) RCR(Rent) 329 (SC) : 2003(11) SCC 397 which has reiterated the view taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan v. Jagdamba Industrial Corpn., 2002(1) RCR (Rent) 514 (SC) : 2002(5) SCC 440. Therefore, there is no legal infirmity in the findings recorded by the Courts below.