Civil Revision No.3966 of 2005 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.3966 of 2005 (O&M)
Date of decision: 17.02.2009
Om Wati .............. Petitioner
Vs.
Narinder Pal Singh ............Respondent
Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate
for Mr. Manu K. Bhandari, Advocate
for the petitioner.
None for the respondent.
2. Civil Revision No.2663 of 2008
Bahadur Singh ………….. Petitioner
Vs.
Narinder Pal Singh …………Respondent
Present: None for the parties.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
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 ?
-.-
K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL)
1. The revision petitions are filed by two different tenants
against one landlord and with regard to the same premises. The
revision petitioners are the tenants, who challenge the order of
eviction passed by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the Appellate
Authority. The eviction was sought on two grounds namely of non-
payment of rent and for personal necessity. Both the revision
petitions are being disposed of, in the light of facts enumerated in
C.R. No.3966 of 2005.
2. The tenant assails the findings of the Courts below and also
Civil Revision No.3966 of 2005 (O&M) -2-
has moved an application in C.M. No.2343-CII of 2008 for reception
of additional evidence to bring to light a subsequent event of
purported sale by the landlord in favour of one Daya Ram and the
landlord having lost the property to a third party cannot persist in the
ground of eviction for personal necessity. The eviction has been
ordered not merely on the issue of personal necessity but also on the
ground of non-payment of rent. While adverting to the said ground,
the Rent Controller has considered the fact that the tenant denied the
status of landlord by contending that his original landlord Kartar
Singh had been made a victim of fraud in selling the property to the
petitioner before the Rent Controller by the alleged document dated
07.06.1996. The Court found that a tenant could not have denied the
nature of transaction of sale or contended that the property had been
dealt with by fraud in favour of the petitioner. Further, the Rent
Controller also considered the fact that the tenant did not pay the
arrears of rent as well as interest and costs assigned by the Rent
Controller despite the fact that she was given an opportunity to do so.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner
contends that by the orders of this Court while ordering interim stay in
the civil revision, the tenant has paid all the arrears of the rent and
therefore, the ground is not available. This contention is merely stated
to be rejected for the non-payment, which the law contemplates is the
non-payment of rent after the determination of rent at the first hearing.
The moment the tenant defied the status of the petitioner as a landlord
and persisted in the same without paying the rent in spite of orders of
Court, such a tenant renders herself liable for eviction forthwith, if the
Civil Revision No.3966 of 2005 (O&M) -3-
denial of title is found to be unjustified.
4. The approach of the Rent Controller as affirmed by the
Appellate Authority accords with law and even without reference to
the issue regarding the personal necessity, the tenants are liable to be
evicted on the ground of non-payment of rent. The civil revision
petitions are dismissed accordingly. No orders as to costs.
(K. KANNAN)
JUDGE
February 17, 2009
Pankaj*