IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5659 of 2008 Date of Decision:- 21.01.2011 Archana Kapoor ...Petitioner Versus M/s Goyal Brothers ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. P.K.Mutneja, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for the respondent. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short “the Act”) seeking ejectment of the respondent from the demised premises on the ground of non- payment of rent @ ` 1500/- per month with effect from 01.04.2004 and onwards. The respondent filed reply, in which he denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties on the pretext that he has been paying rent to Prem Sagar Kapoor @ ` 1500/- per month. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- 1. Whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent? OPR 2. Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent? OPP 3. Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted on the ground of change of user? OPP. 4. Whether the present petition is not maintainable under the law? OPR. 5. Relief. Civil Revision No.5659 of 2008 -2- Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the rent assessed by the learned Rent Controller on 04.04.2007 had to be tendered on the first date of hearing but the said rent has been tendered on 11.08.2007. On this pretext, the application was filed seeking eviction of the respondent, which has been dismissed illegally by the learned Rent Controller. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan and others Versus Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and others, 2002(5) S.C.C. 440, Vasant Ganesh Damle Versus Shrikant Trimbak Datar and another, (2002) 4 Supreme Court Cases 183. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that once the relationship of landlord and tenant is denied, then no question of assessment of rent arises much less the tender thereof. In this regard, he has relied upon the judgments of this Court in Yash Pal Singh Verus Vijay Kumar, 2004(3) P.L.R. 504, M/s Rachitech Engineering Private Limited Versus M/s. Kundan Steel Private Limited, 2007(1), R.C.R. (Civil), 218, M/s Gawritex Industries Limited, Panchkula Versus Sqn Ldr. Gurdial Singh (Retd.) & Others, 2009(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 70 and M/s. Chopra Jewellers Versus Rajender Pal Gupta, 2010(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 228, Mrs. Preeti Versus Manmohan Singh and another, 2008 (1) HRR 482 and Sandeep Shahi Versus Smt. Asha Rani, 2010(2) R.C.R. 500 I have heard both learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. No doubt that the rent has been tendered on 11.08.2007 but that appears to be not a fault of the respondent because on 04.04.2007, the Rent Controller had only assessed the arrears of rent with costs Civil Revision No.5659 of 2008 -3- whereas on 02.05.2007, the amount of interest was assessed. Thereafter, the Court was on leave and on the next date, on the request of parties, it was adjourned and ultimately on the effective date i.e. on 11.08.2007, the rent was tendered. In any case, this question is not required to be decided by this Court in view of the fact that the respondent has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant with the petitioner and an issue in that regard was struck by the Rent Controller, therefore, in view of the consistent view of this Court that wherever the relationship of landlord and tenant is denied, the provisional rent is not required to be assessed and paid. In view thereof, the application by which the eviction has been sought is totally mis-conceived and as such there is no error in the impugned order passed by the Court below. Dismissed. January 21, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) Gagan JUDGE