Adarsh Aggarwal vs Vishnu Dutt on 5 November, 2008

Civil Revision No. 6058 of 2008                                          1




      In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.


                   Civil Revision No. 6058 of 2008

                     Date of Decision: 5.11.2008


Adarsh Aggarwal
                                                               ...Petitioner
                                 Versus
Vishnu Dutt
                                                            ... Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.


Present: Ms. Puja Chopra, Advocate
         for the petitioner.


Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that learned Rent

Controller, Jalandhar, has specifically held as under:-

“…Thus, in view of Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2 and in view of

the absence of cross-examination on this aspect by

the counsel for the petitioner, in my considered view,

respondent has successfully proved the due rent

which was to be paid by him to the petitioner was

from 1.9.2002 till 31.7.2005 @ Rs.400/- per month

and not w.e.f. 1.8.2002 till 31.7.2005. Moreover,

respondent in his written statement has also

indirectly admitted his liability to pay arrears of rent

from 1.9.2002 till the date of filing of petition. Even,
Civil Revision No. 6058 of 2008 2

as per the provisional assessment of rent the

respondent has already tendered the rent from

1.9.2002 till 31.7.2005 @ Rs.400/- per month.

Therefore, though it has been established that

respondent was in arrears of rent from 1.9.2002 till

the date of filing of present petition @ Rs.400/- per

month and not from 1.8.2002, but he paid the same

in the Court. Therefore, it cannot be termed that

tender of the rent made by the respondent to the

petitioner was short and invalid. Accordingly, issue

No.1 is decided partly in favour of petitioner and in

favour of respondent and issue No.2 is decided

against the petitioner and in favour of respondent.

Since arrears of rent have already been cleared by

the respondent, therefore, now this ground is not

available with the petitioner to seek the ejectment of

the respondent”.

Learned counsel further states that by ordering that the

appellant should deposit Rs.3,00,000/- as a surety bonds, onerous

condition has been imposed, to defeat the very right of the appeal.

Order of learned Appellate Authority passed on 9.9.2008 is

modified to the extent that the petitioner-tenant shall deposit Rs.2,500/-

per month before learned Appellate Authority in lieu of the rent to be

paid to the landlord. It has been held in M/s Atma Ram Properties (P)

Ltd. v. M/s Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd. (2005)1 Supreme Court Cases

705 that learned Appellate Court or Revisional Court can compensate
Civil Revision No. 6058 of 2008 3

the landlord once the tenancy has come to an end. Learned Appellate

Authority is also directed to dispose off the appeal expeditiously

preferably within three months.

Amount of Rs.2,500/- shall be paid from the date of passing of

the order by learned Rent Controller.

Revision petition is disposed off.

(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia)
Judge
November 5, 2008
“DK”