Civil Revision No.2668 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2668 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.08.2010 Smt. Shanti Devi and others ....Petitioners Versus Sarwan Kumar and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Hari Om Attri, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Walia, Advocate, for respondent No.1. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This revision petition, by the tenants, is directed against the order dated 11.1.2003, passed by the learned Rent Controller, Hisar, as affirmed by the learned appellate authority, ordering eviction of the petitioners on the ground of non-payment of rent. The respondent-landlord filed a petition for eviction of the petitioners on the ground of non-payment of rent. The pleaded case of the respondent-landlord was, that Sh. Ram Sarup was inducted as tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only), excluding house tax. After the death of Sh. Ram Sarup, tenancy was inherited by the petitioners. It was the case of the respondent-landlord, that the property in dispute was transferred by way of family settlement under a civil court decree in favour of the landlord. That earlier late Sh. Ram Sarup was paying the rent to the respondent-landlord, but after his death Civil Revision No.2668 of 2008 (O&M) -2- the petitioners did not pay any rent in spite of repeated requests. The eviction was sought on the following grounds: - “(b) That the rent fixed by agreement between the petitioner and the respondents is Rs.500/- per month excluding the house tax for the property in dispute. (c) That the respondents are in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1-04-1998 till to date. (d) That no fair rent under the Act has been fixed for the premises in dispute. (e) That the respondents are tenants in the residential portion of the property but they have changed the user of the property and have also materially altered the nature of the property. (f) That the respondents are living in the property in dispute and are running shop in the property in dispute. (g) That the details of the premises on rent with the respondents have been given in the headnote of the petition and para No.2 of the petition.” The petition was contested by the tenant-petitioners by denying the relationship of landlord and tenant. The petitioners claimed to be owners of the property, under a farokatnama, said to have been executed by the father of the respondent-landlord, in favour of the father of the petitioners. It was also the case of the tenants, that a civil suit for declaration claiming ownership of the property, was pending in the civil court. It is not in dispute that the suit filed by the petitioners, claiming declaration of ownership stands dismissed, and appeal filed against the decree was also dismissed. The learned Rent Controller, on appreciation of evidence, recorded a finding that there existed the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, and that the petitioners were liable to be Civil Revision No.2668 of 2008 (O&M) -3- evicted from the tenanted premises on the ground of non-payment of rent, as admittedly the petitioners failed to deposit the rent. The learned Rent Controller could not determine the provisional rent, in view of the stand taken by the petitioners, that there existed no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller was affirmed by the learned appellate authority. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended, that the impugned orders cannot be sustained in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan and others Vs. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and others, 2002(2) PLR 370, as it was incumbent on the learned Rent Controller to fix the provisional rent and give an opportunity to the petitioners to pay the rent. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, was that the impugned order deserved to be set aside, by remanding the case back to the learned Rent Controller to assess the rent payable, and give an opportunity to the petitioners to deposit the rent. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, cannot be accepted, as it is well settled law, that the learned Rent Controller is not obliged to determine the provisional rent, in case, the relationship of landlord and tenant is denied, as by taking this stand the tenant shows his intention of not paying the rent, even if rent is determined. The petitioners have taken the risk of eviction by taking a stand, which could not be proved. In view of what has been stated, once it was proved that the petitioners have failed to pay the rent, the learned Rent Controller had Civil Revision No.2668 of 2008 (O&M) -4- no choice but to order eviction of the petitioners and that is what has been done. The finding of the learned Rent Controller has rightly been upheld by the learned appellate authority. Consequently finding no merit in this revision petition, it is ordered to be dismissed, but with no order as to costs. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge August 26, 2010 R.S.