CR No.2497 of 2011 (O&M) -1- ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2497 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:03.05.2011. Anil Kapoor ...Petitioner Versus Kum Kum Kohli and another ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. I.P.S.Kohli, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. The tenant is in revision against the orders of the Courts below by which application for his eviction filed by the landlords under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short “the Act”] has been allowed. In short, the landlords filed the petition for eviction of the tenant from House No.6052, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, U.T., Chandigarh [for short “demised premises”] by alleging that he was inducted in the demised premises vide lease deed dated 26.03.2001, which was duly registered before the Sub Registrar, U.T., Chandigarh, at the yearly rent of `84,000/- for the first year, `92,400/- for the second year and `1,01,640/- for the third year respectively or @ `7,000/- per month for the first year, @ `7,700/- per month for the second year and @ `8,470/- per month for the third year. As per Clause 13 of the lease deed, the tenant was liable to pay monthly rent of `25,410/- in case of his overstay in the demised premises, beyond the period of 31.03.2004. In the written statement, it was alleged that the tenant has already paid the rent and the contents of Clause 13 of the registered lease deed were CR No.2497 of 2011 (O&M) -2- ****** denied. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed as many as four issues. The landlords examined R.K.Kohli, respondent No.2 herein, as PW1 and tendered rent agreement dated 26.03.2001 as Ex.P1, copy of legal notice dated 28.02.2004 as Ex.P2, postal receipts as Ex.P3 & Ex.P4 and UPC as Ex.P5, whereas the tenant examined himself as RW1 and closed his evidence. The main emphasis of the argument of the tenant before the learned Rent Controller was that Clause 13 of the rent agreement is a penal clause which cannot be enforced in terms of Section 6 of the Act, but that argument could not find favour with the learned Rent Controller in view of the finding recorded in the impugned order and since the tenant had failed to pay the rent @ `25,410/-, therefore, he made himself liable to be evicted in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan V. M/s. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, 2002(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 514. Aggrieved against the order of the learned Rent Controller, the tenant filed statutory appeal in which again the same issue was tried to be raised, but the learned Appellate Authority has held that Clause 13 of the rent agreement is not a penal clause and since the tenant had failed to tender the rent which was ordered to be paid within 3 months, therefore, his eviction was rightly ordered vide the impugned order. In this revision petition, while arguing the case, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the tenant cannot be ordered to be evicted from the demised premises by relying upon a penal clause i.e. Clause No.13 of the registered lease deed. In this regard, it would be sufficient to hold that the tenant had himself entered into the rent agreement which was got registered, therefore, he was bound by all the terms and conditions of the agreement and in this manner, Clause 13 of the registered lease deed cannot be termed to be a penal clause. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that no rent was due on 15.04.2004 when the eviction petition was filed as the rent of April, 2004 would become due in the next month i.e. May, 2004. I am afraid that this plea is not available to the petitioner simply for the reason that despite the fact CR No.2497 of 2011 (O&M) -3- ****** that the time was granted to the tenant by the learned Rent Controller to tender the rent, he had failed to tender the rent within the stipulated period, therefore, he was liable to be evicted in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra). No other point has been raised. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and as such, the same is hereby dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. May 03, 2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain ) vinod* Judge