IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB
AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
C.R. No. 2594 of 1988. [O&M]
Date of Decision: 21st July, 2009.
Om Saran Petitioner
through
Mr. J.L.Malhotra, Advocate
Versus
Raj Kumar Kuchhal Respondent
through
Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL)
This Revision Petition is directed by the tenant against
the ejectment order dated 4.2.1987 passed by the Rent Controller,
Sonepat whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be evicted from
the demised premises on the ground that he has failed to prove
payment of rent up to 31.5.1979 and also did not tender rent due
from him from 1.1.1978 to 31.12.1980, as well as against the
judgment dated 22.9.1988 passed by the Appellate Authority,
Sonepat, upholding the eviction order.
The facts may be noticed briefly.
The respondent – landlord sought the petitioner’s eviction
from the premises bearing No.24/12, Mission Road, Sonepat, inter-
alia, on the ground that [i] the petitioner is in arrears of rent w.e.f.
1.1.1978 to 31.12.1980; [ii] the demised premises shown in the site
plan with letters EFGH is required by the landlord for his personal
use and occupation and [iii] the premises is in a dilapidated condition
and is unfit and unsafe for human habitation.
The petitioner – tenant contested the eviction petition,
inter-alia, claiming that he had already paid the rent up to 31.5.1979.
He controverted the other grounds of eviction as well.
A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Rent
Controller reveals that grounds No. [ii] and [iii] for eviction, namely,
‘personal necessity’ and ‘the premises having become unfit for
human habitation’ were not pressed by the landlord. The parties went
on trial on the ground as to whether the petitioner – tenant was in
arrears of rent or not. The Rent Controller answered the said
controversy in favour of the landlord holding that the petitioner has
failed to prove that he had paid the rent up to 31st May, 1979 nor he
tendered the arrears of rent due w.e.f. 1.1.1978 to 31.12.1980 and
was, thus, liable to be evicted. The petitioner preferred an appeal
which was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority, giving rise to
this revision petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some
length and have also perused the impugned orders.
The solitary contention raised on behalf of the petitioner –
tenant is that once the Rent Controller decided the issue regarding
non-payment of arrears of rent against the petitioner – tenant, it was
imperative upon him to grant one opportunity to the petitioner to
tender the arrears of rent. He has placed reliance upon a decision of
the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan & Ors. V M/s Jagdamba
Industrial Corporation & Ors., [2002] 5 SCC, 440.
It may be mentioned here that vide order dated
29.10.2002, this case was ordered to be heard along with Civil
Revision No. 1474 of 1988 which in turn was referred to a Larger
Bench to resolve the purported conflict in the two decisions in [i]M/s
Rubber House v M/s Excellsior Needle Industries Pvt. Ltd., JT
1989[4] SC, 488 and [ii] Rajinder Kumar Joshi v Veena Rani, JT
1990[4] SC, 50.
The Full Bench vide order dated 9.5.2007 disposed of the
reference after observing that in view of the later Supreme Court
decision in Vinod Kumar Versus Prem Lata, AIR 2003 SC, 3854
affirming its view in Rakesh Wadhawan’s case [supra], the question
which was referred to the Larger Bench, no longer survived.
Civi Revision No. 1474 of 1988, wherein an identical
controversy had arisen for consideration, has since been allowed by
a Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 4.7.2007 to the extent
that after setting aside the eviction order, the matter was remanded
to the Rent Controller with a direction to determine the arrears of rent
along with interest payable thereupon and thereafter to grant one
opportunity to the petitioner – tenant to make tender of such arrears,
as has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Rakesh
Wadhawan’s case [supra].
In the light of the above discussion, the revision petition is
allowed, the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is
remanded to the Rent Controller, Sonepat with a direction to
determine the arrears of rent and interest/costs to which the
petitioner is liable to pay and thereafter grant an opportunity to the
petitioner – tenant to tender the same. In case the petitioner tenders
the arrears of rent within the time granted by the Rent Controller, no
order of eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent shall be
passed.
The parties are directed to appear before the Rent
Controller, Sonepat on 24.8.2009.
Disposed of accordingly.
July 21, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE