CR No. 1774 of 2006(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 1774 of 2006(O&M) Decided on : 06-08 2010 Mohinder Lal ....Petitioner VERSUS Bhagwan Dass ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr.Parminder Singh , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Puneet Sharma, Advocate for the respondent MAHESH GROVER, J This petition by the landlord is directed against the orders dated 1.2.2005 and 23.11.2005. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have both determined the proceedings against the petitioner who had filed the petition for eviction against the respondent on the following grounds:- i) non-payment of arrears of rent and house tax w.e.f 1.12.1988. ii)The respondent has made material additions and alterations in the premises in dispute and has impaired the value and utility of the same. The petitioner has alleged that on 21.3.1996 at 9:30 am the respondent brought a mason and two labourers with him and they went to the roof of the chaubara. The mason and the labourers started removing the tiles of the roof of the said chaubara and when the CR No. 1774 of 2006(O&M) 2 respondent was enquired about that as to with whose permission the tiles in question were being removed by him, he answered that he wanted to reconstruct the roof of the rom so that the holes through which the rainy water leaked into the room could be filled up and the consent of the landlord was not required for that purpose. The petitioner approached the President, Rainak Bazar Shopkeeper Welfare Association, Jalandhar and made a request to him for restraining the respondent from doing the said illegal act. A meeting of the executive body of the said association was convened on the application made by the petitioner but the association expressed its helplessness in taking any action against the respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application to the police station Division No.4, Jalandhar. The respondent succeeded in replacing the roof and has affixed the tiles with the mixture of cement and sand over the roof of the room on 23.6.1996 at 1:00 p.m. It has been alleged that the respondent had not obtained the permission from the petitioner for reconstruction of the roof and he is guilty of making material additions and alterations which has diminished the value and utility of the room/tenanted premises. A notice was also issued to the respondent thereby calling upon him to vacate the premises in question, but to no effect. iii)The respondent is a permanent source of nuisance for the petitioner as well as occupiers of the other buildings in the CR No. 1774 of 2006(O&M) 3 said area. As and when the rent was demanded from him, he quarreled with the petitioner. He brow beats the petitioner as he is having connections with the gunda elements. The conceded position before this Court is that the respondent has not paid rent since 2004. Even in the petition which was filed it was pleaded that he had not paid rent from 1.12.1988. The respondent was given sufficient opportunity by this Court to deposit the rent as also to pay rent which would bear some semblance to the prevailing market rent. He, however, had chosen not to accept the indulgence of the Court and has rejected the olive branch handed out by the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that since opportunity was granted to the respondent to pay the arrears of rent in order to permit him to continue with the tenancy which offer he has tried to obstruct by merely submitting a draft of Rs. 7000/- as arrears for the period from 2004 to 2010, the respondent does not deserve any concession as he is repeated defaulter in the payment of rent. It is a settled proposition of law that a tenant who does not show sufficient cause in deposit of rent does not deserve the benefit of the protection of law, moreso, when opportunities were given to him. Even in Rakesh Wadhwan vs. Jagdamba Industrial Corpn. 2002 (5) SCC 440 the observations were intended to grant protection to a tenant so as to obviate any hardship and to ward off any situation where the slight default of the tenant may result in his eviction. But if the instant case is to be seen the respondent has stubbornly defied the payment of rent and has shown that he has scant respect for the relationship of a landlord and tenant because the payment of rent is essential bedrock of such relationship. Consequently, the petition is accepted and application no. 19624 CII of CR No. 1774 of 2006(O&M) 4 2010 is rejected. Respondent is ordered to be evicted from the premises in question. The draft is ordered to be returned to him. August 06 , 2010 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge