CR No.5318 of 2010(O&M) -1- ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.5318 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision:25.03.2011. Surinder Kumar and another ...Petitioners Vs. Smt. Leela Devi ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Pawan Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The questions of law involved in this revision petition are as under:- a) whether in a case of an unanticipated holiday, the Presiding Officer of a Court is obliged to fix a fresh date for proper orders on the next working day in terms of Rule 4 of Chapter 1, Part K, Volume 1 of the Rules & Orders of Punjab & Haryana High Court or can pass an effective order on the next working day? b) whether if the holiday is not unanticipated, but the case is adjourned by the Presiding Officer to a Sunday or a declared holiday, is he required to fix a date for proper orders by taking up the case on the next working day? The brief facts of the case are that the landlady filed a petition seeking eviction of her tenants from the demised premises bearing Shop No.1094, Morigate, Manimajra, U.T. Chandigarh, which was allegedly rented out to them by way of a lease deed dated 03.12.2004 @ `4,000/- per month CR No.5318 of 2010(O&M) -2- ****** w.e.f. 01.12.2004 to 30.11.2005, @ `4,200/- per month w.e.f. 01.12.2005 to 30.11.2006, @ `4,410/- per month w.e.f. 01.12.2006 to 30.11.2007 and @ `4,630/- per month w.e.f. 01.12.2007 to 30.11.2008. The ejectment was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent amounting to `47,320/- up to 30.11.2007, w.e.f. 01.12.2007 to February, 2008 and also w.e.f. 01.12.2008 onwards. The tenants admitted that the lease deed was executed for a period of 3 years, but they denied the allegation of non-payment of rent and had rather submitted that the rent amounting to `52,000/- was tendered in an earlier rent petition and as such, there was no arrears of rent which could be claimed by the landlady. The learned Rent Controller, vide his order dated 17.12.2010, assessed the provisional rent @ `4,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.12.2008 till February, 2010 alongwith interest @ 6% per annum and costs of `1,000/- which was ordered to be tendered by the tenants on 28.03.2010, which fell on a Sunday, therefore, the learned Rent Controller took up the case on 29.03.2010 as it was automatically adjourned for the next working day in terms of Rule 4 of Chapter 1, Part K, Volume 1 of the Rules & Orders of Punjab & Haryana High Court [for short “Rules & Orders”]. The counsel for the tenants appeared on 29.03.2010, but the rent was not tendered, rather the extension of time was prayed on the pretext that a close relative of the tenants has expired. The landlady opposed the prayer of the tenants and alleged that the case is not required to be adjourned because the effective date of hearing, which falls on a holiday, is the next working day and since the tenants are not prepared with the amount of rent assessed by the learned Rent Controller, therefore, they are indulging into dillydallying tactics. The learned Rent Controller observed that the Court has no jurisdiction to extend the time for the purpose of tendering the rent in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan Vs. M/s. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, 2002(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 514 and as such, the order of eviction was passed on 29.03.2010. The tenants then filed statutory appeal before the learned Appellate Authority which was also dismissed on the ground that in case of non-tendering of the provisionally assessed rent on the date fixed, the learned Rent Controller had no other alternative but to pass the eviction order in view of the judgment of the CR No.5318 of 2010(O&M) -3- ****** Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra) and also the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Rajan alias Raj Kumar Vs. Rakesh Kumar, 2010(2) PLR 201. It was also observed by the learned Appellate Authority that the tenants had not disclosed the date of death of their relative (father-in-law). Aggrieved against the impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below, the present revision petition has been filed in which learned counsel for the petitioners/tenants has argued that in view of Rule 4 of Chapter 1, Part K, Volume 1 of the Rules & Orders, the learned Rent Controller was obliged to fix the date for proper orders on the next working day instead of deciding the same on that day as the date given by the learned Rent Controller for tendering of rent fell on Sunday. In support of his submission, he has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Joint Hindu Family Trading Firm (Registered Firm) Matu Ram Puran Chand Vs. Firm Bansi Dhar Dalal and others, 1976 PLJ 613. He has also submitted that pursuant to the order of notice of motion, the tenants have already deposited the arrears of rent. In reply, leaned counsel for the respondent/landlady has submitted that there is no error in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below and the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners/tenants in the case of Joint Hindu Family Trading Firm (Registered Firm) Matu Ram Puran Chand (supra) is not at all applicable to the present case in view of the fact that the latter part of Rule 4 of Chapter 1, Part K, Volume 1 of the Rules & Orders, which has been basically relied upon by the tenants, has already been deleted vide correction slip No.32 dated 07.05.1988. He also submitted that the tenants have not even complied with the order of notice of motion passed in this case in its true letter and spirit as they had deposited the arrears of rent beyond the period of 10 days which was granted to them by this Court. I have heard both learned counsel for the parties and have perused the available record with their able assistance. Before referring to the facts of this case, it would be relevant to refer to Rule 4 of Chapter 1, Part K, Volume 1 of the Rules & Orders, which is CR No.5318 of 2010(O&M) -4- ****** as under: - Rule 4 Chapter 1 Part K Volume 1 “4. Adjournment caused by absence of the Judge of unexpected holiday. On the occurrence of an unanticipated holiday or in the event of the Presiding Officer of a Court being absent owing to sudden illness or other unexpected cause, all cases fixed for the day in question deemed to have been automatically adjourned to the next working day when the Presiding Officer is present and it shall be the duty of the parties or their counsel (but not of witnesses) to attend Court on that day. Whenever possible the Presiding Officer should, as soon as may be, fix fresh dates in cases fixed for the date which is declared a holiday or for which he has obtained leave, and issue notices to the parties, their counsel and witnesses, of the fresh dates fixed. In the case of a Small Cause Court where there are Additional Judges, the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Provincial Small Cause Act (IX) of 1887) should be followed.” The aforesaid Rule was interpreted by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Joint Hindu Family Trading Firm (Registered Firm) Matu Ram Puran Chand (supra) in which the facts of the case were that the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery, in which respondent No.2 was served personally and he put in appearance on behalf of himself and respondent No.4. Respondent Nos.3 and 5 were served through publication, but they did not appear on 04.07.1966. On that date, the learned Subordinate Judge did not hold the Court and the case was set down for hearing for the next day. On 05.07.1966, respondent Nos.3 & 5 again did not appear and were proceeded against ex-parte. After recording of the evidence, the learned Trial Court CR No.5318 of 2010(O&M) -5- ****** decreed the suit against the respondents which was set aside in appeal. It was argued on behalf of the appellants in that case that in terms of Rule 4 of Chapter I-K of Volume I of the High Court Rules and Orders, in the event of absence of the Presiding Officer, all the cases fixed for the day in question shall be deemed to have been adjourned to the next working day when the Presiding Officer is present and it was the duty of the parties to attend the Court on that date. The Division Bench in this regard observed that: - “4. No doubt the parties are enjoined by the first part of the rule to attend the Court on the next working day but a corresponding duty is also cast by the latter part of the rule on the Presiding Officer to fix a fresh date in the suit and inform the parties, the counsel and witnesses of the same. The parties are required to attend on the next working day, it appears to enable the Court to fix a date in their presence and to avoid thereby the necessity of the communication of the date fixed. That is why the rule does not authorize the Court to take further proceedings in the suit and only envisages the fixation of the next date. If the parties of their counsel are present then the next date of hearing would be made known to them, but if they are not present, they have to be informed of the same. 5. Even if it may be accepted that the said rule is also capable of the interpretation as suggested by the learned counsel for the appellants it has to be avoided for it is now well settled that the rules of procedure are hand maid to the administration of justice meant to advance its cause and not to defeat the same. Moreover, the view of this Court, consistently has been that in the event of a Presiding Officer of a Court being absent on the date fixed for the hearing of a case, no order to the prejudice of the absentee parties CR No.5318 of 2010(O&M) -6- ****** on the following day would be passed and the Court should fix another date and issue fresh notice to the absentee party and to the witnesses.” The aforesaid judgment rendered in the case of Joint Hindu Family Trading Firm (Registered Firm) Matu Ram Puran Chand (supra) would not be applicable in the present case in view of the fact that it has dealt with the latter part of the Rule 4 of Chapter 1, Part K, Volume I of the Rules & Orders which provides that “whenever possible the Presiding Officer should, as soon as may be, fix fresh dates in cases fixed for the date which is declared a holiday or for which he has obtained leave, and issue notices to the parties, their counsel and witnesses, of the fresh dates fixed” and this part of the Rule 4 has been deleted vide correction slip No.32 dated 07.05.1988 and is no more available as a part of Rule 4. Meaning thereby, in case of an unanticipated holiday or in the event of the Presiding Officer of a Court being absent owing to sudden illness or other unexpected cause, all cases fixed for the day in question shall be deemed to be automatically adjourned to the next working day when the Presiding Officer is present and it shall be the duty of the parties or their counsel (but not of witnesses) to attend the Court on that day. The question of issuance of notice to the parties, which was provided by the latter part of this Rule and has been interpreted in the case of Joint Hindu Family Trading Firm (Registered Firm) Matu Ram Puran Chand (supra), has already been deleted in the year 1988. Thus, the first question, which has been framed in the beginning of the judgment, is decided accordingly. Now the second question involved in this revision petition is that if the adjourned date is not an unanticipated holiday but a holiday already declared in the calendar for the judicial Courts for the States of Punjab, Haryana and UT Chandigarh or is a Sunday, then in that circumstance, Rule 4 of Chapter 1, Part K, Volume 1 of the Rules & Orders would not be applicable because it deals with only an unanticipated holiday and not a holiday which is already known. In this regard, no rule is brought to the notice of the Court by the counsel for the parties and in these circumstances, the parties appearing before CR No.5318 of 2010(O&M) -7- ****** the Court in such type of cases, can always pray for a date for proper orders. Reverting back to the merits of the case, it would be relevant to mention that it was Sunday on 28.03.2010, the date which was fixed for tendering of rent by the tenants and consequently, the learned Rent Controller took up the case on the next working day on 29.03.2010, but on that date, the counsel for the tenants did not ask for fixing a date for proper orders, rather he prayed for extension of time on the ground that the tenants has not come forward for the purpose of tendering rent due to death of a close relative. They did not lead any prima facie evidence in this regard from which the Court could have found that the reason assigned by the counsel for the tenants is not a ploy to seek extension of time for the purpose of tendering rent because it is possible that on that date the tenants were not having arrangement of the rent to be paid as it is evident from the fact that while issuing notice of motion in this case, dispossession of the petitioners/tenants was stayed subject to their clearing the entire arrears of rent within 10 days from the said date, but despite that order, the tenants tendered the rent beyond the period of 10 days as it was deposited on 10.09.2010, whereas it was required to be deposited on 09.09.2010. The learned Appellate Authority had also found that the tenants have not disclosed the alleged date of death of their relative, therefore, they were disbelieved on this account as well. In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances mentioned here-in-above, the present revision petition is found to be without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. March 25, 2011. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge