CIVIL REVISION NO.2191 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 10, 2008 Ms. Neena Kumar .....Petitioner VERSUS Captain P.C.Jain ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Aggrieved against the eviction order, the petitioner-tenant has impugned the order passed by the Rent Controller as well as by the Appellate Authority through the present revision petition. The petitioner is a tenant in House No.1257 (Ground Floor), Sector 34-C, Chandigarh. Her landlord, Capt. P.C.Jain filed a petition for her ejectment on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.2.2005 onwards. It is also pleaded that the house has CIVIL REVISION NO.2191 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: been converted to a paying guest and as such, would necessitate eviction of the petitioner. It is pleaded that earlier rent was Rs.11000/- per month, exclusive of electricity and water charges. The rent was to increase by 5% every year and accordingly, rent w.e.f. From January 2005 was Rs.11,550/-. Initially, the husband of the petitioner used to pay the rent and after his death, the petitioner allegedly adopted careless attitude and also started using the premises for commercial activities. By making wooden partition in the rooms, the same have been sub-let to different occupants, thus, converting the premises to a private paying guest accommodation. The petitioner is allegedly charging rent regularly from such occupants. The record reveals that the petitioner initially did not appear despite issuance of publication and was, thus, proceeded exparte. On 2.6.2007, the ex-parte proceedings were set-aside and thereafter the case was fixed for 18.8.2007 for provisional assessment of the rent. On the same day, the Rent Controller directed the tenant to pay the arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.2.2005, which worked out to a sum of Rs.3,98,000/-, inclusive of interest and costs etc. The petitioner did not tender the assessed rent but instead moved an application by appearing in person. The petitioner orally submitted that according to her the rent payable was Rs.1,98,000/- including interest whereas her counsel was stating it to be Rs.3,98,000/-. The petitioner made an oral request before the Court for grant of some time for payment of Rs.1,98,000/- which she was ready to tender. On her request, the case was adjourned to post lunch session as the petitioner wanted to hand over a cheque for CIVIL REVISION NO.2191 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: payment of Rs.1,98,000/-. When the file was taken up after lunch, Mr.Mukesh Mittal, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the petitioner and made a statement that the petitioner was not having sufficient means and as such, was not coming forward to make the tender of rent. The court of Rent Controller accordingly held that it was left with no option but to order eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal against the said order. She, however, contested the appeal on entirely new ground. The petitioner filed an application for amendment of the written statement by stating that the landlord has revealed existence of two rent agreements when he filed an application for vacation of stay in the appeal. One agreement relates to the portion of the house as described at the rate of Rs.6000/- per month whereas the second agreement related to the other portion at the monthly rent of Rs.5000/-. It is further pleaded that the landlord has not impleaded all the legal heirs of Pawan Kumar in the eviction petition and as such, sought permission to add Paras 5 and 6 of the preliminary objections by way of amendment to incorporate these facts. The plea is that the respondent landlord will be required to file two separate and independent petitions. The amendment, as sought, of course was not allowed by the Appellate court, which had otherwise up-held the finding recorded by the Rent Controller. The counsel representing the petitioner has impugned the orders of eviction on three grounds. He would first contend that no determination in regard to arrears of rent was done and the petitioner, as per the ratio of law laid down in Rakesh Wadhawan CIVIL REVISION NO.2191 OF 2008 :{ 4 }: Vs. Jagdama Industrial Corporation, AIR 2002 SC 2004, was entitled to another opportunity to make up the deficiency in respect of the arrears of rent. It is pleaded that such an order was required to be made only while finally adjudicating the rent petition and not immediately on account of arrears of rent even if due. The existence of two rent deeds is highlighted to say that single petition for eviction in regard to two rent deeds is not maintainable. The counsel has relied upon the case of Rajinder Lal Vs. Gopal Krishan, 2006 (2) PLR 124. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and find these without any merit. The respondent-landlord has stated that there are two rent agreements dated 19.1.2004 but this was done at the behest of a tenant. It is pointed out that subsequently, the petitioner-tenant has been considering the tenancy as one. It is highlighted that when the petitioner failed to pay rent after the death of Pawan Kumar, the respondent-landlord made serious efforts to recover the outstanding rent. This led to filing of a suit by the tenant against the respondent- landlord during April 2005. The respondent-landlord would refer to the pleadings of the petitioner in that suit where she has herself stated to be a tenant in the entire ground floor of House No.1257, Sector 24-C, Chandigarh. The petitioner had clearly pleaded to be a tenant in accommodation of both the rent agreement. She has also disclosed the rate of rent to be Rs.11,000/- excluding electricity and water charges. She never pleaded that there were two separate tenancies and two separate rate of rents as was now being stated. She had appeared as a witness and gave statement, admitting that CIVIL REVISION NO.2191 OF 2008 :{ 5 }: she is a tenant on the ground floor on a monthly rent of Rs.11,550/-. It is thereafter that the respondent-landlord had filed a rent petition in February 2005. She had also filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent-landlord claiming that she is in exclusive possession of the entire house, including the roof rights. In this view of the factual position and the fact that no such stand was ever taken by the petitioner before the Rent Controller, the plea of two separate tenancies can not be permitted to be raised at the stage of appeal or revision. Her plea that she learnt about two tenancies from the stand taken by the respondent can also not be accepted in view of the facts as noticed. The submission by the counsel that after assessment of provisional rent, opportunity was required to be provided to the petitioner-tenant to pay the arrears is also totally against the record. As noticed, the Rent Controller had assessed the rent provisionally that was payable to be Rs.3,98,000/-. The petitioner on her part appeared before the Court and on her own showing stated that arrears of rent were Rs.1,98,000/-. She took time to pay the said amount, which was granted. It can not, thus, be pleaded by the petitioner that she was not provided opportunity to deposit the arrears of rent as assessed provisionally. The petitioner might have something to say if she had deposited the rent, which according to her was payable, for which she had sought adjournment and which was granted to her. She, however, did not appear before the Court thereafter to pay either the provisional rent as assessed or the rent which according to the petitioner was payable. This was the only ground on which the eviction was sought. CIVIL REVISION NO.2191 OF 2008 :{ 6 }: There is no dispute about the rate of rent, which is admitted by the petitioner as per the averments made in the suit filed by her, reference to which has been made above. Once the court of Rent Controller had given time and opportunity to the petitioner to pay the arrears of rent but she failed to do so, then nothing remained to be done, for which another opportunity was required to be provided to the petitioner-tenant. Reliance placed by the counsel on the case of Rajinder Lal (supra) would also be of no avail to her. That was a case where the order of ejectment was passed even before a written statement was permitted to be taken on record. That was also a petition under Section 13 and 13-A and the tenant had also moved an application for leave to contest the petition. The ejectment was ordered even before such an application was taken up for hearing. It is further observed that the Rent Controller can pass an order of eviction only after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application. This is not such a case where there was a dispute about the rate of rent which required to be determined. After assessing the provisional rent the case was adjourned to give opportunity to the petitioner for paying the provisional rent as assessed. This is also not a case where the rent due is in dispute. The petitioner, on her own account, admitted that rent as due is Rs.1,98,000/-, took time to deposit the same, but failed to do so. This case, as such, is peculiar in its facts. Here the eviction was also sought only on the ground of arrears of rent. The plea of two separate rent deeds was even not raised before the Rent Controller. This came to be raised subsequently during the appeal but the amendment in this regard was not allowed. CIVIL REVISION NO.2191 OF 2008 :{ 7 }: Taking the totality of the facts and circumstances in view, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner in this case was granted sufficient opportunity to deposit the rent, which she failed and as such, there is no patent illegality or irregularity, which would cause manifest injustice to the petitioner. The petition is accordingly dismissed. April 10 ,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE