C.R. No.529 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.529 of 2007 Date of Decision. 19.10.2011 Vipan Kishore son of Jugal Kishore, Proprietor of Supreme Electronics, resident of near Civil Hospital Ropar, Tehsil and District Ropar .....Petitioner Versus Veena alias Meena daughter of Chaman Lal and another .....Respondents Present: None. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J. 1. The civil revision has been passed against the interim order passed by the Appellate Court against the order of eviction made by the Rent Controller. At the time of passing the interim order of stay of eviction, the Appellate Court had directed that the rent shall be paid. The revision is against the said order. 2. In an action for ejectment by the legal representatives of the deceased-landlord Leela Wati, the tenant was contending that although he had taken the property on rent from the applicants' mother, the landlord had entered into agreement of sale in favour of the tenant's wife and that a suit for specific performance had also been filed. It was the contention that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not any longer exist and the rent was, therefore, not payable. The tenant also contested the petitioners' locus standi to file the petition even without a C.R. No.529 of 2007 -2- succession certificate or impleading of all the legal heirs. The landlord held that defence to be untenable, in view of the fact, which was admitted, that the suit for specific performance has been dismissed and even the appeal filed against the dismissal was also dismissed. The Court found that there was admittedly a plea that the tenant had not paid rent after two years from the year 1998 nor did he make any offer to make the payment during the pendency of proceedings. The tenant was willful in default for payment of rent. The Court had also rejected the contention that the petitioners were not entitled to maintain the action without a succession certificate. It proceeded, therefore, to grant the order of eviction as sought for. 3. In a case where admittedly there had been no denial in character in possession as far as the petitioner was concerned and he was merely setting up the plea of agreement of sale in the name of his wife. The liability to pay the rent can never cease by the only fact that there was an agreement of sale in favour of the wife. Even in the event of the agreement being found to be true and a decree for specific performance were also to be granted in her favour, the right of possession at the instance of the person, who held the agreement, namely his wife, will be independent of the liability to pay the rent by the tenant. This can alter only if there is a specific agreement between the landlord and the purchaser that the tenant need not any longer pay the rent or the agreement itself was in supersession of the tenancy arrangement between the landlord and the tenant. There was not even such a contention in the pleadings. The direction for deposit of rent as a condition for stay was, under the circumstances, perfectly justified. C.R. No.529 of 2007 -3- 4. At the time when the matter was brought before Court for admission, the petitioner had taken time to produce copy of the judgment passed in civil suit filed by the petitioner for specific performance. The case had been adjourned sine die and it was directed to be put up when the needful was done. This order was passed on 01.02.2007. Over four years, the petitioner has not filed any document as directed to be produced by this Court. Even the production of the documents, in my view, would not support the contention of the petitioner to plead that his liability to pay the rent would cease. 5. There is no representation for the petitioner at the time when the matter is called although the registry has reported that learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has been duly informed. The civil revision petition is a vexatious attempt and the same is dismissed on merits with costs assessed at Rs.5,000/-. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 19, 2011 Pankaj*