C.R. No. 1496 of 2010 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 1496 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 28.6.2010 Ramesh .......... Petitioner Versus Smt. Sushila Devi ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Sudhir Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 19.9.2008, passed by the learned Rent Controlled, as affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority ordering eviction of the petitioner for non- payment of rent. The respondent / landlord filed a petition seeking eviction of the petitioner from the tenanted premises on the plea, that the premises was rented out to the petitioner @ Rs. 6,00/- (Rupees six hundred only) per month, which was payable on the first day of each English Calendar month. The landlord claimed, that the petitioner was in arrears of rent since December 2002, and had failed to pay the rent in spite of demand. On notice, petition was contested, wherein preliminary C.R. No. 1496 of 2010 -2- objection was taken challenging the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The petitioner also denied the ownership of the landlord. On the basis of pleadings, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues :- “1. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected from the house in dispute on the grounds taken in para No. 3-A of the Rent petition?OPA 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for vacant possession against respondent with regard to the house in dispute as prayed for?OPA 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable as alleged?OPR 4. Whether the petition is liable to be dismissed as alleged?OPR 5. Whether the petitioner has no locus- standi and cause of action to maintain this petition as alleged?OPR 6. Whether the petitioner has not come with clean hands before the Court, if so to what effect effect?OPR 7. Relief.” The learned Rent Controller on appreciation of evidence, C.R. No. 1496 of 2010 -3- and the pleadings of the parties, recorded a finding, that there existed a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The learned Court thereafter proceeded to record a finding, that the petitioner was in arrears of rent, and the plea of adverse possession taken was not accepted, as it was held to be an attempt to avoid payment of rent to grab the property of the respondent / landlord. The learned Rent Controller thereafter heard the parties for assessing the provisional rent, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan Vs. M/s Jagdambey Industries 2002(2) PLR 370. As the petitioner had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, as also his liability to pay the rent. Consequently, the learned Rent Controller held, that the petitioner was in arrears of rent and ordered the eviction of the petitioner, without assessing the provisional rent. In appeal, the finding of the learned Rent Controller, that there existed a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was affirmed. However, in order to do justice, conditional order was passed directing the petitioner to pay arrears of rent within 15 days from the date of passing of the order, with further stipulation that in case the amount was not deposited, then the appeal would be deemed to have been dismissed. When this revision came up for hearing on March 8, 2010, the following order was passed :- “Learned counsel states that without prejudice to the various pleas raised by him at C.R. No. 1496 of 2010 -4- the trial, he would bring along a draft for the entire claim amount on the next date of hearing. Notice of motion 22.4.2010. In the meantime, ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from the tenanted premises shall stand stayed.” However, the petitioner failed to comply with the order dated 8.3.2010, and again on 22.4.2010, this Court passed the following order :- “Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he may be granted two weeks time to comply with the undertaking given on the last date of hearing that a draft of the entire amount shall be presented before the Court. List on 14.05.2010.” The petitioner chose not to appear on May 14, 2010. Today again the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has shown his inability to pay the arrears of rent, as ordered by the learned Appellate Authority, and also as per undertaking given in this Court. The findings of the learned Courts below are based on appreciation of evidence, holding that there existed the relationship of landlord and tenant, which are based on appreciation of evidence, hence can not be challenged in this revision petition. There is also no dispute that the petitioner is in arrears of rent, as he has failed to pay the same on the first date of hearing. The eviction order was C.R. No. 1496 of 2010 -5- therefore rightly passed. For the reasons stated above, there is no merit in this revision petition, which is ordered to be dismissed, but with no order as to costs. 28.6.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE