Civil Revision No.465 of 2009 (O & M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.465 of 2009 (O & M)
Date of decision 28.1.2009
Vijay Kumar .....Appellant
versus
Lal Chand .....Respondent
Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan. Present: Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. K. Kannan, J (Oral)
1. The appellate Court entertaining the appeal against the order of
eviction passed by the Rent Controller, imposed, at the time of stay, a
condition for deposit of arrears of rent. The tenant is aggrieved against the
direction and seeks for setting aside the direction in revision.
2. The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner
is that the Rent Controller had drafted the issue wrongly casting the burden
of proof on the tenant to establish that there was no relationship between the
landlord and tenant. When, according to him, and in my view rightly so,
the burden of proof was always on the landlord who approached the Court
for relief to establish that there existed a jural relationship of landlord and
tenant, on a consideration of the order of ejectment by the Rent Controller,
on due consideration of evidence after trial, and at the time of passing an
order of stay, the appellate authority though it fit to impose the condition for
deposit of rent. Section-15(3) of the Haryana Urban Control (Rent and
Eviction) Act, 1973 empowers that the appellate authority to pass an order
of stay of further proceedings in the matter pending decision on the appeal.
The power to grant stay is always discretionary and the Court issues the
Civil Revision No.465 of 2009 (O & M) -2-
order that will take into consideration the relevance of the hardship that
would be caused to the appellant if the stay was not granted. To keep the
scales even, it shall always be the duty of the appellate authority to give
such directions or impose such conditions as it thinks fit for staying the
operation of the order. The Court in its discretion issued the condition for
grant of stay by directing for deposit of arrears of rent. Although the issue
is whether the rent is payable at all or whether there existed relationship of
landlord and tenant, having regard to the fact that the Rent Controller had
entered a finding that there existed such a relationship and ordered
ejectment, there was every justification for the appellate authority to impose
such condition as it has done. There is no impropriety or illegality in the
order passed and the revision petition is consequently dismissed.
3. Having regard to the denial of relationship between the
landlord and tenant and the entitlement of the landlord to receive the
amount the rent which is directed to be deposited shall remain in Court
without being disbursed to the landlord. It shall be opened however, to the
landlord to apply to the Court for withdrawal by furnishing such security as
the Court may think fit to impose or it shall be open to appellate authority to
pass appropriate orders, depending on the outcome of the appeal.
4. Subject to this modification this revision petition is dismissed.
( K. KANNAN )
JUDGE
28.01.2009
A. KAUNDAL