CR No.5804 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CR No.5804 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: .09.2010 M/s. Laxmi Traders and another ....Petitioners Versus Kushal Pal Singh Mann ....Respondent. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Bedi, Advocate for the Caveator. ... Alok Singh, J. Tenant - revisionist has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), challenging the order dated 18.9.2008 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, as well as the judgement and order dated 9.2.2010 passed by the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, whereby the eviction petition filed by the landlord - respondent was allowed directing eviction of the tenant - revisionist. Brief facts of the present case are that the landlord has CR No.5804 of 2010 2 preferred eviction petition under Section 13 of the Act on the ground that the tenant has failed to pay or tender rent from June, 1995 onwards till the filing of the eviction petition; tenant has ceased to occupy the building for continuous period of four months from October, 1999 and has put his lock on the demise premises; the tenant has not even paid electricity bill due to which the electric meter was removed by the Electricity Department. It is further contended in the eviction petition that earlier also tenant had failed to make payment of rent with effect from 16.8.1993, as such, civil suit for ejectment and suit for recovery was filed. The suit for ejectment was dismissed, however, the suit for recovery was decreed vide judgement and decree dated 6.8.2001 passed by the Civil Judge Junior Division, Chandigarh. First appeal filed by the landlord was also dismissed vide order dated 6.8.2002. However, Regular Second Appeal has been admitted by this Court, which is pending. It is further averred that during the pendency of the earlier litigation, tenant once again failed to tender rent from June, 1995, hence, present eviction petition. Tenant - revisionist herein filed his written reply to the eviction petition and has stated that petition for eviction is not maintainable in the light of the notices issued by the Administration whereby the plaintiff is neither the owner nor the landlord of the demised premises. It is further contended by the tenant that the landlord is not the owner of the property as the same has been resumed by the order of the Estate Officer. It is further averred that having received rent from the tenant - revisionist, respondent - plaintiff had paid entire arrears to the Administration to avoid resumption. The Rent Controller in the impugned order dated 18.9.2008 has CR No.5804 of 2010 3 held the rate of rent as Rs.10,000/- per month excluding water and electricity charges and further held that the tenant - revisionist failed to pay or tender arrears of rent from June, 1995 and onwards. It is further observed by the Rent Controller that since tenant has denied the relationship of landlord - tenant between the parties, hence, there is no option before the Court except to order eviction of the respondent - tenant. However, the Rent Controller did not find favour with the landlord that the tenant has failed to occupy the premises w.e.f. October, 1999. Order of the Rent Controller was challenged by the tenant - revisionist by way of Rent Appeal No.97 of 11.10.2008, which was also dismissed vide impugned judgement dated 9.2.2010, after upholding the findings recorded by the Rent Controller. However, the Appellate Authority has observed that order of resumption dated 9.5.2001 passed by the Chief Administrator, UT, Chandigarh has already been set aside by the Adviser to the Administrator, UT, Chandigarh and petitioner is the landlord and owner of the tenanted property. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Mr. Gurcharan Dass, learned advocate for the revisionist - tenant vehemently argued that even if tenant has denied the relationship of landlord – tenant between the parties in view of the resumption order passed by the Chief Administrator, UT, Chandgiarh dated 9.5.2001, the Rent Controller was duty bound to provisionally assess the rent and to grant an opportunity to the revisionist to tender entire arrears of rent as per the provisional assessment of rent. He has strongly relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the matter of Rakesh Wadhawan Vs. M/s. CR No.5804 of 2010 4 Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, reported in 2005(5) SCC 440. Mr. B.S. Bedi, learned advocate appearing for the caveator – respondent refuted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the tenant – revisionist and argued that once relationship of landlord – tenant between the parties is denied by the tenant, there was no need for the Rent Controller to assess provisional rent and to grant an opportunity to the tenant to deposit entire arrears of rent. The sole question which requires consideration before this Court is as to whether an opportunity should be granted to the tenant to deposit entire arrears of rent when relationship of landlord – tenant has been denied between the parties ? This Court in the matter of Raghbir Singh and others Vs. Sansar Chand and others, reported in 2004(3) PLR 841, in paragraph 14 has held as under:- “14. It may further be observed that an attempt was made to argue that on account of law laid down in Rakesh Wadhawan and Ors. v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and Ors., (2002- 2)131 P.L.R. 370, the tenant-respondent is entitled to an opportunity for payment of rent. It was suggested that since no provisional order of assessment of rent has been drawn by the Rent Controller, the tenant-respondent deserved to be granted an opportunity for depositing the arrears of rent. However, I am not impressed with the argument raised because this Court has taken a consistent view that in cases where the tenant disputed the relationship between the parties, then no order of assessment of rent is required to be framed because it would be CR No.5804 of 2010 5 a futile exercise because the tenant cannot be expected to pay rent to some one to whom he did not regard his landlord. The aforementioned view has been taken by this Court in the case of Ramanand Shastri v. Gain Singh, 2003(3) Civil Court Cases 62 and Hukma Devi v. Bhagwan Dass, (2003-2)134 P.L.R. 771. Therefore, I have no hesitation in disagreeing with the suggestion made.” This Court in the matter of Hukma Devi Vs. Bhagwan Dass, reported in 2003(1) RCR(Rent) 533 in paragraph 14 has held as under:- “14. A perusal of afore-mentioned provision shows that there is a presumption of relationship of landlord and tenant which is implicit in Section 13(2). Therefore, an unscrupulous tenant like the petitioner cannot first be permitted to take the stand that he is not the tenant under the landlord and then to claim that he is a tenant but he should be permitted to deposit the assessed arrears of rent. If such an interpretation is given to Section 13(2) than many tenants may take the stand that there is no relationships of landlord and tenant. In such a case a tenant would successfully delay the payment of rent. Therefore, there cannot be any obligation on the Rent Controller to make an assessment about the arrears of rent once such a stand has been taken by the tenant. The objection of making assessment of the arrears of rent, interest and cost by the landlord is that in case there is a dispute with regard to rate of rent or the period of rent, house tax, cost and interest etc. then he may not suffer because of short tender. But in a case where the tenant CR No.5804 of 2010 6 refuses the liability to pay the rent, the question of assessment would not at all arise.” Again, this Court in Sandeep Shahi Vs. Smt. Asha Rani (CR No.1595 of 2009, decided on 7.9.2010, while placing reliance on the earlier judgements of this Court in Raghbir Singh (supra) and Hukma Devi (supra), has held that once relationship of landlord – tenant is denied between the parties, neither assessment nor opportunity is required to be given to the tenant to deposit arrears of rent. Undisputedly, the resumption order passed by the Chief Administrator, UT, Chandigarh dated 9.5.2001 has already been set aside by the Advisor to the Administrator, UT, Chandigarh vide order dated 4.12.2002 Ex. PW1/6, as held by the Appellate Court in paragraph 13 of the impugned order. Admittedly, possession was never taken by the Administration pursuant to the alleged resumption order, which was later on set aside. Both the Courts below have held that the tenant is in arrears of rent from June, 1995, which the tenant has failed to pay or tender to the landlord. I find no reason to interfere with the view taken by both the Courts below. Revision is misconceived and hence, is dismissed. No order as to costs. However, two months’ time is granted to the tenant to hand over peaceful physical possession of the premises in question to the landlord. ( Alok Singh ) Judge .09.2010 sk.