VIVEK GOEL Vs. DEVENDER SINGH PARMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the orders dtd. 9/8/2024 and 27/8/2024 vide which the order with respect to provisional assessment of rent had been passed and on non- payment of the same, the eviction order from the premises in question had been passed. Challenge is also to the judgment dtd. 8/10/2024 vide which an appeal filed against both the orders dtd. 9/8/2024 as well as 27/8/2024 had been dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the present case, the eviction order had been passed without framing of any issues and without conducting a regular trial. It is submitted that the petitioners had a good case on merits and thus, in case the trial is conducted, they would be able to show that the pleas raised by respondent No.1- landlord with respect to arrears of rent were incorrect and no amount was due from the present petitioners. Second ground of challenge raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the provisional assessment of rent was required to be done at the initial stage and once the ex-parte evidence had been led by respondent No.1- landlord then in that situation, at a subsequent stage, provisional assessment of rent could not have been done and thus, the impugned order dtd. 9/8/2024 deserves to be set aside on the said ground alone and that the subsequent orders which have been passed and which are consequential to the order dtd. 9/8/2024 also deserve to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his arguments, has relied upon the zimni orders from 7/1/2021 to 9/8/2024 which are taken on record and marked as Mark "A'.

(3.) Learned counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand, has opposed the present revision petition and has submitted that once the petitioners had not paid the rent as provisionally assessed vide order dtd. 9/8/2024 then they were not entitled to a regular trial and the only consequence of the same was an eviction order that was required to be passed in a summary manner. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court passed in CR- 3577-2006 decided on 7/1/2010 titled as Rajan @ Raj Kumar Vs. Rakesh Kumar, in the said regard. It is submitted that in the present case, the petitioners have made every effort to delay the proceedings and on two occasions, the petitioners were proceeded against ex-parte and they have not paid the rent to the landlord since 2014. It is further submitted that on 9/8/2024, the case was adjourned to 27/8/2024 for making the payment of provisional rent. Neither the said payment was made nor there was any stay order operating against the said order dtd. 9/8/2024 and thus, the eviction order dtd. 27/8/2024 had been rightly passed.