SO CIVIL REVISION NO 2468 OF 2008 m1m 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDJGAR14 g DATE OF DECISION Februarya2010 PartiesName a MIS Mehfll Hospitality Limited andanother 1 PETITIONERS VERSUS 0 C Gunnail Singhand another RESPONDENTS C5 CORAA HONBLE MRJUSTICE MUKUL MUDGALCHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR JUSTICE JASBIR SlNGH Z 0 PRESENT MrXanwaljitSinghSeniorAdvocate with Mr NSGillAdvocate for thepetitioners 08 Mr Amit JhanjiAdvocate for the V7 JASBIR SINGH J Om JUDGA By filing this revlSlon petitionthe petitioners have laid challengeto an order datedMarch 28 2008 passedby the Rent Controller ordering their from the basementand groundOoor of SCO Nos 1 2 and 3 Sector 17D Chandigarh n short the deinised premises Record reveals that the landlords have filed an under Section 13ofthe East PunjabUrban Rent Restriction Act 1949 6asapplicable to for of the petitioners frolll the delnisedpremises on the groundof noroaymentof rent wef July l Uma 2013.01.15 14: 31 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 51 CIVIL REVISION NO 2468 OF 2008 2 2002 oftenant and landlord betweenthe partiesis admiued The propertywas taken on rent against a leasedeed datedMarch 05 2001 The Rent Contr8ller vide order datedFebruary22 2008 assessed theprovisional rent alongwith interestthereonand cost oflitigationwhich was to be paidby the petitioners on or before March 28 2008 It 1S m apparent from the records that instead of complyingwith that order Q moved an application on March 28 2008 seekingextcnsion of 0 C tlme foi makingpaymentof the provisional amount assessed The Rent 0 Controller dismissed that applicationvide the impugnedorder and I of the petitioners from the demised premises was Z also ordered Insteadof filingan appealpetitioners cameto this Court by t filingthisrevision petition I lt is an admittedfact that under orders passedbythis Court on 08 April28 2008 the petitioners had deposited the amount assessedby the RentController vide his order datedFebruary22 2008 It was statedbefore va Z US that thereafter the petitioners had been depositingrent every month tl However this fact was disputedby counsel for the be that as it may this dispute1S not very important to decide thepresentcontroversy Counsel for the petitioners contended that the provisional rent assessedby the Rent Controller was not correct He 3 further stated that the cannotbe ordered unless and until the petitioners are given an to contest amount of rent claiined by the Bystatingthat theRent Controller hascommittedan enor ln Iaw in allowingrent and orderingejectinentof the 1 he prayedthat the revision petitionbe allowed and the Uma 2013.01.15 14: 31 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 52 CIVIL REVISION NO 2468 OF 2008 3m 1 order be set aside Prayer madebycounsel for thepetitioners hasvehemently been by counsel for the who by makingreference to the conclusiondrawn by their lordshipsof the SupremeCourt in Rakesh Wadhawanv MIS JagdambaIndustrial Comoration AIR2002 Supreme C Court 2004 arguedthat the order passedby the Rent Controller was 0 perfectly justified C After hearingcounsel for thepartiesand goingthrough tlle case 0 f1le this Court 1S convinced that the revision petitionis liable to be I dismissed As per record propertywas taken on lease against a Z leasedeed on March 5 2001 in which as per terms and conditions of the CC tenancyannual increasein rent by 7 YIo was agreedbetweenthe parties I Petitionerscommitteda default and failed to make paymentof rent wef 08 July 1 2002 which compelledthe to file an application for their By takingrecourse to the ratio in Rakesh Wadhawans case W2 Z supra9Rent Controller assessed the provisional rent interest accrued thereon and the cost on February22 2008 Petitioners were directed to depositthe amount so assessed byMarch 28 2008 Neither the amount was deposited nor the assessment order passedby the Rent Controller was by the petitionersRather inexplicablyan application was movedon March 28 2008 for extensionoftime in makingpaymentofrent which we feel was rightly rejectedby the Rent Controller vidc the impugned order datedMarch 28 2008 It is an admiued fact thatagainst the ejectment order datedMarch 28 2008 no appeal was Sled thoughthatorder was It appears that the petitioners are interested only 111 delayingthe matter Afler getting the property on lease Uma 2013.01.15 14: 31 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 53 r 0 f 6 ClVIL REVISION NOe 2468 OF 2008 4 1 the year 2001 theycontinued to enjoythe same however without ln makingpaymentofanyrent Their pleafor not makingpaymentofthe rent amount that theyhad incurred hugeexpenseson renovationofthe demised premises was rightlyrejectedby the Rent Controller whi le making provisionalassessmentof the rent amount This Court is of the view that 1 the Rent Controller was justifiedin ordering of the petitioners on 0 thegroundof nonoaymentof the rent amount assessed Their lordships of C the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawans case lpralwhile dealingwitll a I C5 similar controversyand after discussingthe provisions of Section 13 ofthe I East PunjabUrban Rent Restriction Act 1949 drawn the following conclusion in No 30 ofjudgmentl 30 To sum up our conclusions are l In Section 13629i9provisothe words assessed by the 08 Controller quali not merelythe words the cost of but the entirepreceding part ofthe sentence ie 7 Z the arrears of rent and interestat six per cent per annum on tl such arrears together with the cost ofapplication 1 2 The provisoto Section 136299 of East PunjabRestriction Act 1949 casts an obligation on the Controllerto make an assessment of arrears of rent 6iil the interest on such arrears and6iii9the cost ofapplication and then quanti61 by wayof an interim or provisional order the amount which the tenantmust pay or tender on the first date of hearingafter thepassingofsuch order ofassessment bythe Controllerso asto satis61the ofthe proviso ee 3 Of necessitythe date of flrst hearingof the application Uma 2013.01.15 14: 31 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 54 r 1 1 f CIVIL REVISION NO 2468 OF 2008 e would mean the datefallingaRer the date of such order by Controller 4 On thefailureofthetenant to complynothing remains to be done and an order for eviction shall foUowf the tenant makes compliancethe inquiryshall continue for flnally 1 C adjudicating upon thedispute as to the arrears ofrentin Ihe 0 lightof thecontendingpleasraised by the landlord and the Cao tenant beforethe Controller emphasis supplied C5 5 Ifthe tlnal by the Controller be at variancewith I his interim or provisionalorder passedunder the proviso Z one of the followingtwo orders may be made depending on tr the facts situation of a givencase If the amount deposited I by the tenant is found to be in exCeS the Controller may 08 direct a re8ind If on the other hand the amount deposited bythe tenantlS foundto be short or deflcient the Controller V7 Z may pass a conditional order directingtenant to placethe m landlord in ofthe premises bygivinga reasonable timeto the tenant for payingor tendering the detlcit amount failing which alone he shall be 1iab1e to be evicted Compliance shall save him for eviction 6While exercisingdiscretion for aording the tenant an of makinggoodthe deflcit one of the relevant factors to be taken into consideration by the Controller would be whether the tenant has paidor tendered with substantialregularlythe rent fallingdue month by month duringthependency ofthe Uma 2013.01.15 14: 31 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 55 f ll CIVIL REVISION NO 2468 OF 2008 6 e The above said conclusions were differently by two leamedSingleJudgesofthis Court reported as Madan Lal and another v Baldev R 6200429PLR 834 and Rinder Lal Ve Gopal Krishan 200629PR 124 To resolve the controversymatter was put 1 up before a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Revision No 3577 of 0 2006 6Raianalias Rai Kumar v Rakesh Kumarl which was decided on 0 January7 2010 byopining as underl I 0 This Court is ofthe view that theratio ofjudgment in Rakesh Wadhawans case supra9leaves no manner of doubt that the Z provisional rent and other ancillarychargesassessed by the C Rent Controller had to be deposited by the tenant on the next I date of hearingalongwith arrears interest and costs etc as 08 may be determinedbythe above said authorityThe first date of hearinghas also been to mean the first date of W7 Z hearinga8er determination of provisionalrent and other by the Rent Controller A readingof conclusions drawn in para No 30 of thejudgment in Rakesh Wadhawans case leaves no doubt that if after determinationof the provisional rent a tenant fails to depositthe same nothing remains to be done and an orderofejectmentofa tenant has to bepassedThe language ofconclusion No 4 in the said para is veryclear and needs no further The Couit 1S furtherof the view that the beneSt of conclusionsNo 5 and 6 would become available to a tenant only on his makinga l depositof the provisional rent and other ancillarycharges Uma 2013.01.15 14: 31 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 56 r4 CIVIL REVISION NO 2468 OF 2008 7 determinedby the Rent Controller and not otherwise ll was implicitlymade clear that it is the boundendutyofthe tenant to depositthe provisional rent determinedbythe Rent Conuoller otherwiseit will entail the tenants from the premises ln disputeThis Court feels that if a tenant is dissatisfled with 1 the interim order passedby the Rent Controller he has an 0 0 to challenge the same before the date fixed for C paymentin thehigherforum 33 0 In Raianalias R Kumars case supralit was furtherobserved Z that the rational of provisionalassessment as Iaid down in Rakesh Wadhawans case is to be discernedOom thereasoning givenby the Honble Supreme Court in para No 29 of the above said judgmentThe 08 Honble SupremeCourt has balanced the interest of the landlords and the tenantsso as to ensure that the tenants getari to depositthe rent n Z upon determinationofthe provisional rent In this case despite tl grantmgan to depositthe provisional rent etc assessedbythe Rent Controller petitioners failed to do the needful As per above said act ofthe petitioners no optionwas left with theRent Controller exceptto ordertheir ejectment In view of facts mentioned above no case is made out for interference at the instance of the petitioners in the judgmentunder chailenge therevision petitionis dismissed 6 t Februaryo2010 DKC CHIEF JUSTICE 60 10 Uma 2013.01.15 14: 31 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document