IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5068 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 04.09.2009 Sukhdev Singh .....Petitioner versus Kulwant Rai .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mrs.Jaspal Kaur Gurna, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. This revision petition is one of the glaring examples as to how the Rent Laws enacted to protect tenants from unscrupulous landlords, are being mis-used by a section of the tenants in order to enjoy the tenanted premises even without paying any rent to the landlord. The petitioner is one of such tenants who has been ordered to be evicted by the Rent Controller, Bathinda vide its order dated 20.3.2009 on the ground of non payment of rent and whose appeal against the said eviction order has also been dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Bathinda vide the impugned judgment dated 18.8.2009. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent- landlord, who is now about 81 years old, filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereafter referred to as `the Act') on 14.9.2006 for ejectment of the petitioner-tenant C.R. No.5068 of 2009 (O&M) 2 from the demised premises comprising a shop situated on ground floor, Super Market, Dhobi Bazar, Bathinda. The said shop was let out to the petitioner-tenant on 10.8.2001, on a monthly rent of Rs.2000/- with a further stipulation to increase the rent @ 10% after every two years. A rent note to this effect was duly executed by the petitioner-tenant on 13.5.2002. The respondent-landlord sought the petitioner's eviction on the ground that he is not paying any rent w.e.f. 10.9.2003 and that he requires the shop in dispute for his personal use and occupation as he wanted to start the business of readymade garments to generate sufficient income for livelihood. Vide an order dated 20.12.2007, the Rent Controller assessed the provisional rent @ Rs.2000/- per month with 10% increase after every two years i.e. Rs.2200/- per month from 10.8.2003 till 9.8.2005 and then Rs.2420/- per month from 10.8.2005 till the date of assessment of the provisional rent, and directed the petitioner-tenant to make payment of the arrears of rent alongwith interest @ 6% per annum and costs of Rs.500/-. The petitioner-tenant challenged the above mentioned order dated 20.12.2007 in Civil Revision No.428 of 2008 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 28.5.2008 but with some concession to the petitioner. The said order reads as follows: “The petitioner is in arrears of rent. Considering his prayer that he is a petty tailor and the amount involved is huge, he was permitted to deposit the arrears of rent due within one year in twelve equal monthly instalments. C.R. No.5068 of 2009 (O&M) 3 As per the counsel for the respondent, the petitioner has not deposited the monthly instalments. Counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner was ready to do so. It is not understandable as to who has stopped them from doing so. The effect of non-deposit of the rent accordingly will be seen by the Rent Controller. No further order needs to be passed in the present revision petition. Dismissed.” In stead of availing the concession already granted by this Court “to deposit the arrears of rent within one year in 12 equal monthly instalments”, the petitioner moved an application before the Rent Controller “to allow” him to pay the first instalment of Rs.10,000/-. No amount, however, was deposited. He then moved second application for the deposit of second instalment of Rs.10,000/- followed by third application for allowing him “to pay the arrears in easy monthly instalments”. No instalment was ever deposited by the petitioner. Suffice it to say that when the High Court had already permitted him to pay the arrears of rent in 12 equal monthly instalments, the afore-mentioned repeated applications by him were nothing but an abortive attempt to circumvent the orders of this Court and not to pay the arrears of rent. The Rent Controller accordingly dismissed those applications and following the dictum in Rakesh Wadhawan and others versus M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and others, 2003 (2) Civil Court Cases 361 (SC), ordered the petitioner's eviction from the demised premises. The petitioner went in appeal before the Appellate Authority, C.R. No.5068 of 2009 (O&M) 4 Bathinda, which has also been dismissed vide the impugned judgment dated 18.8.2009 with the following observations: “It is not denying the fact that a provisional rent was assessed on 20.12.2007 by the learned Rent Controller at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month, which was ordered to be increased at the rate of 10% after every two years and, therefore, the provisional rent was assessed to be Rs.2200/- per month from 10.8.2003 till 9.8.2005 and Rs.2420/- per month from 10.8.2005 till date. The arrears were ordered to be paid with interest at the rate of 6% per annum and costs of Rs.500/-. The perusal of trial Court file further shows that the said order was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court. The revision was dismissed with the observations that the effect of not depositing of rent will be seen by the Rent Controller. Even before the Hon'ble Court, the appellant had made a request for permission to deposit the arrears of rent within one year in 12 equal monthly installments. The perusal of trial Court file further shows that on 26.3.2008 appellant filed an application for depositing the second instalment of the rent. Then another application was filed on 9.4.2008 for depositing the second instalment of the rent. Then another application dated 15.5.2008 was filed for depositing the third instalment of rent. However, the rent was never deposited. It is not understood as to when the provisional rent has been assessed, who stopped the tenant from depositing the arrears of rent and if he wanted to pay the part of the arrears, he was always at liberty to deposit the same subject to the effect thereof to be seen by the Rent Controller. The rent was not deposited and consequently the ejectment order was passed.” C.R. No.5068 of 2009 (O&M) 5 The counsel for the petitioner vehemently urges that the applications were moved by the petitioner-tenant to comply with the order dated 28.5.2008 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No.428 of 2008 and that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the arrears of rent. Having heard counsel for the petitioner at some length and on perusal of the impugned orders and seeing the conduct of the petitioner- tenant, I do not find any merit in this revision petition. In my considered view, the petitioner-tenant has been adopting one or the other delaying tactics to harass the respondent-landlord and not to pay the rent. The petitioner-tenant was obligated in law to tender the arrears of provisionally assessed rent and thereafter to contest the eviction petition, if so required. What to talk of tendering of the arrears of rent on the first effective date of hearing, the petitioner-tenant did not deposit such arrears even in 12 equal monthly instalments, as was permitted by this Court vide order dated 28.5.2008. In these circumstances, the eviction order is inevitable and no fault can be found with the same. The revision petition is dismissed accordingly. 04-09-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE