Rani vs Kamla Devi on 17 August, 2009

CR No.4564 of 2009 (O&M)                                           1


       IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
                  HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

                                   CR No.4564 of 2009(O&M)
                                   Date of Decision:-August 17,2009
Rani                                               ....Petitioner
                              Versus
Kamla Devi                                         ....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
   judgment?
2. Whether to be referred to the Reports or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported to the Digest?

Present:    Shri Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.
                                 ORDER

Surya Kant, J. (Oral):

This revision petition is directed at the instance of the

tenant, who has been ordered to be evicted by the Rent Controller,

Jalandhar, vide order dater 20.11.2007 from the demised premises

comprising one room of House No.13, backside Industrial Estate,

Jalandhar. The petitioner-tenant preferred an appeal against the said

eviction order and the same has also been dismissed by the

appellate authority, Jalandhar vide his judgment dated 4.6.2009.

The case of the respondent-landlady appears to be that

the petitioner approached her to let out one room accommodation for

a short duration as she was already looking for some residential

accommodation in some good locality. It appears that the demised

premises is small tenement in the Industrial Area owned and

possessed by the respondent-landlady. It may also be noticed that

the respondent-landlady is living in another room of the premises

alongwith her family.

The respondent-landlady filed an eviction petition under
CR No.4564 of 2009 (O&M) 2

Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for

short “the Act”), inter-alia, on the ground that the petitioner-tenant

has failed to pay the rent at the agreed rate of Rs.1500/- per month

and that the petitioner-tenant used to come to the room in the late

evening alongwith different companions and used to bolt the room

from inside for a long time due to which the respondent-landlady and

other residents of the locality had a bonafide suspicion regarding the

immoral activities taking place in the demised premises. The

respondent-landlady further averred that since she is living in jointly

alongwith other family members, the room in question is required by

her for personal use and occupation of the family.

The facts on record would reveal that the Rent Controller,

Jalandhar vide order dated 17.10.2007 assessed the provisional rent

with effect from January 2007 onwards at the rate of Rs.750/- per

month alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum with costs of

Rs.1000/- and directed the petitioner-tenant to tender the same on or

before 20.11.2007.

Since neither the petitioner turned up nor tendered the

arrears of rent on the date fixed, the Rent Controller passed the

following order on 20.11.2007:-

“Counsel for petitioner made a statement that despite

the fact that the provisional rent was assessed,

respondent has not come present in the court nor the

rent which has been assessed paid or deposited and

information regarding depositing of rent also not

received. Case called several times since the
CR No.4564 of 2009 (O&M) 3

morning. It is 3.55 p.m. Respondent is proceeded

against ex-parte and non payment of assessed rent,

ejectment order is passed. I have also perused the

written reply. Relationship of landlord and tenant was

not disputed. Rate of rent of Rs.500/- was claimed by

the tenant though the landlord demanded Rs.1500/-

as rent. Rent as assessed at Rs.750/- per month

which has not been paid. Ejectment order is passed.

Petition is allowed.”

The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate

Authority taking a plea that she was suffering from Asthmatic

Bronchitis from 18.11.2007 to 23.11.2007 and was advised complete

bed rest, therefore, could not appear and tender the rent on the date

fixed.

The aforesaid plea of the petitioner has been turned

down by the Appellate Authority and rightly so after observing that

the petitioner-tenant need not to have been present in person to

tender the rent as she had already engaged a counsel who could

tender the rent on her behalf. The Appellate Authority appears to be

right in observing that the plea taken by the petitioner regarding her

ailment is an after thought and far from convincing.

No ground to interfere with the impugned orders is made

out.

Dismissed.

(Surya Kant)
Judge
17.8.2009
AS