Civil Revision No.5364 of 2011(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5364 of 2011(O & M) Date of Decision:05.09.2011 Union of India & Ors. ....petitioners Versus Mrs.Harjinder Kaur .....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Manish Jain, Advocate for the petitioner *** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.(ORAL): Union of India has filed the instant revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 08.01.2010 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, whereby its eviction has been ordered from the demised premises for non-compliance of the order of provisional assessment and has further challenged order dated 14.06.2011 of the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, dismissing the appeal against the aforesaid orders of eviction. Shorn of unnecessary details, it is suffice to say that the respondent-landlord filed an eviction application against the petitioners for non-payment of rent and also on the ground of personal necessity. Upon notice, the petitioner-Union of India raised preliminary objections stating that the respondent-landlord has no locus standi to file the ejectment petition as she is neither owner nor landlady of the demised premises. However, it was further averred that the demised premises were hired in Civil Revision No.5364 of 2011(O & M) 2 the year 1972 through one Bishan Singh, special power of attorney holder of Smt.Harjinder Kaur-respondent. The said special power of attorney also executed a lease deed in the year 1989 which was extended till September 1994 but during this period, the said special power of attorney died on 20.08.1991. Thereafter, the son of the special power of attorney had been pressing for the payment of the rent. No one visited the office of the petitioner for clarification of certain doubts about the authenticity of the documents submitted by them. On merits, it was pleaded that respondent was not landlady of the demised premises. Other pleas were denied. It was specifically denied that the petitioners were making irregular payment of rent. Finally, prayer for dismissal of the petition was sought. The Rent Controller, Chandigarh, assessed the provisional rent vide order dated 14.11.2009, which reads thus: Present: Counsel for the parties. Submissions on assessment of rent heard. Petitioner submitted that the rate of rent is Rs. 4560/- per month payable by the respondent w.e.f. 01.07.1992 onwards excluding water and electricity charges. On the other hand, the counsel for respondent submitted that the petitioner is neither the owner of the premises nor the landlady. It has been further submitted that respondent never denied for payment of rent but same could not be paid due to the reason explained since the identity of the petitioner is doubtful. Respondent is ready to make the payment, he has not disputed the payment of rent but disputed the identity of the petitioner. Although name of the petitioner and husband name is same but the respondent is denied the petitioner as the Civil Revision No.5364 of 2011(O & M) 3 same petitioner and address of the petitioner is also same. Since there is no criminal complaint of misappropriation, this point requires leading of evidence by both the parties. However, in the meantime, the assessment of rent is made and the rate of rent is fixed Rs. 3560/- p.m. payable by the respondent w.e.f. 01.07.1992 to till date alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. and costs of Rs. 600/- excluding water and electricity charges. Respondent is directed to pay the assessed rent on 07.01.2010. Sd/- RC/14.11.2009 Thereafter, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners nor the rent was tendered. Petitioners were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 08.01.2010 and their eviction was ordered by passing the following order: 1. Smt. Harjinder Kaur (hereinafter referred to as petitioner) has filed this petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, for eviction of the respondents from entire floor of Kothi # 3136, Sector 21-D, Chandigarh. 2. On notice, the respondents appeared and filed written statement, wherein they took preliminary objection that petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition as she is neither owner nor landlady of the premises. All other averments of the petition were denied by the respondent. 3. Thereafter on 14.11.2009, assessment was made Civil Revision No.5364 of 2011(O & M) 4 by the Court. The provisional rent of premises was assessed at Rs. 3560/- payable w.e.f. 1.7.1992 alongwith interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and costs of Rs. 600/-. Today, the case was fixed for payment of rent. The respondent not only pay the rent but also did not appear in this case but even failed to tender the rent assessed by the Court. Accordingly, in view of the ratio of the authority Rakesh Wadhwan Vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation & Ors., 2003 (2) Civil Court Case (SC) 361 wherein it was held that the respondent-tenant is bound to pay the rent after the assessment, on the first date of hearing. In case, the rent is not paid and on failure of the tenant to comply with the order of assessment, after the passing of the same by the Rent Controller, the eviction will follow. In this case, the respondent not only failed to appear but he also failed to tender the rent assessed by the Court. Accordingly, the petition is allowed ex- parte and the respondent is directed to vacate the premises in question entire ground floor of Kothi # 3136, Sector 21-D, Chandigarh within a period of two months from today. Memo of costs be prepared. File be consigned to the records. Announced Sd/- 08.01.2010 (Mahesh Kumar) Rent Controller Chandigarh Civil Revision No.5364 of 2011(O & M) 5 Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh. During the pendency of this appeal, petitioners moved an application before the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh for deciding the stay application and also giving permission to deposit the arrears of rent on 06.04.2011. The Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, allowed the petitioners to deposit the arrears of rent at their own responsibility by passing the following order: Present: Sh. GC Babbar, Counsel for the Appellants Sh. Vaneesh Khanna, Counsel for respondent One of the relief sought by the UOI in their Application dated 09.03.2011 is for granting permission to deposit the arrears of rent during the pendency of the Appeal. In the reply filed by the Respondent in para 10, it is submitted that Appellant is free to deposit the arrears to rent at his own responsibility and Respondent is entitled to withdraw the rent. In view of the reply, the Appellant is free to deposit the rent at their own responsibility. The main Appeal is listed for 26.04.2011. So the case is adjourned to 26.04.2011 for arguments. -sd- District Judge 06.04.2011 Despite the aforesaid order, the petitioners failed to deposit the arrears of rent and moved application dated 10.05.2011 for modification of the aforesaid order for deposit of arrears of rent and in the said application, it was pleaded that respondent was not the landlady and owner Civil Revision No.5364 of 2011(O & M) 6 of the demised premises and since the identity of the landlady was in question, therefore, it was apprehended that the amount so withdrawn by her may not be in the hands of ineligible person and it was pleaded that the amount so deposited may not be released to the respondent till the final decision of the appeal. In reply, the respondent landlady pleaded that after passing of the assessment order, the petitioners never took the plea regarding the identity of the respondent and the plea taken by the petitioners was that they could not obtain the sanction from the competent authority in time and requested more time for making the payment of arrears of rent. The Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case found that the petitioners have failed to tender the rent as per the provisional assessment order and dismissed the appeal in view of the law laid down by this Court in Madan Lal and another versus Baldev Raj 2004(2) PLR(P & H) 834, wherein it is held that the Court was not competent to extend the time and the tenant was liable to be ejected for non payment of rent. While passing the aforesaid judgement, the Appellate Authority,Chandigarh also observed that in the application for permission to deposit the arrears of rent, the petitioner-Union of India had taken a specific ground that due to administrative difficulties, they could not get the approval for making payment of rent with interest and costs as assessed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, within time and therefore the application for extension of time was filed for tendering the rent. Challenging the aforesaid orders, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the documents on record have been misread, misconstrued and mis-applied to the facts of the case, resulting in material prejudice to the petitioners because from the facts on Civil Revision No.5364 of 2011(O & M) 7 record, it is clearly established that the identity of the landlady was not certain and as such the amount of provisional rent as assessed could not be deposited. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned orders/judgements. Admittedly, the amount of provisional rent was assessed on 14.11.2009 and the petitioner-tenants were directed to tender the aforesaid provisional rent on 07.01.2010. Admittedly, the aforesaid amount to be tendered before the Rent Controller,Chandigarh was not available with the petitioner on the date of tender. A perusal of the draft placed on record would show that the amount of `10,71,679/- which was to be tendered was available with the Union of India only on 10.02.2011 i.e.beyond the date of tender. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not dispute the well settled proposition of law to the effect that the Rent Controller,Chandigarh was not competent to extend the time for payment of provisional rent beyond the date fixed and once the tenant had failed to tender the rent in terms of the order of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, the ejectment of such a tenant is bound to follow. Thus, no error can be found in the impugned orders. No other point is argued. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 05.09.2011 neenu