SURINDER KUMAR Vs. SAVITRI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court impugning the order dated 11.05.2015 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur, whereby, the Court has come to a conclusion that the provisional rent as assessed by the Rent Controller has not been tendered by the petitioner and therefore, keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan Vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, 2002 1 RCR(Rent) 514, the eviction order has been passed, appeal against which preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur, vide order dated 28.01.2016 (Annexure P-6). It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the date which was fixed for tendering of the provisional rent as assessed, the Court had recorded that the counsel for the petitioner has sought adjournment as the petitioner had not come to Court as yet and on his request, the case was adjourned for further proceedings. This order was passed on 03.02.2014. Thereafter, an application was moved by the petitioner the same day that he is ready to make the payment and got his statement recorded in the Court but since the counsel for the respondentlandlord and the landlord had left and they were not present, the case was adjourned for further consideration. The date which was fixed was 04.04.2014, on which date the case could not be taken up as prior thereto, an order was passed indicating that the Court would be on leave and the matter was adjourned to 24.05.2014. On the said date, an application was moved by the respondent-landlord for passing an order of ejectment of the petitioner-tenant on account of non-compliance of the order dated 27.11.2013, according to which, the provisional rent as assessed and was to be tendered. The copy of the application was supplied to the counsel for the petitioner and the case was adjourned for filing reply and further proceedings. Unfortunately, on the next date of hearing, when the case was taken up on 25.07.2014, the landlord had died and an application for impleading her legal representatives was filed, which was ultimately allowed by the Court on 06.05.2015. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed on 11.05.2015. He contends that a perusal of the zimni orders would indicate that the petitioner was ready and willing to deposit the provisional rent as assessed by the Rent Controller on the date which was fixed for the same. Initially, when the case was taken up for hearing, the petitioner was not present in Court. The moment he reached the Court, an application for tendering the provisional rent was filed. Rest is apparent from the sequence of the orders which have been passed by the Rent Controller from time to time. He, thus, contends that the petitioner cannot be punished for non-fault of his and the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan's case in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case would not be applicable to the case in hand as there is no extension of time granted by the Rent Controller in the case of the petitioner. Prayer has, thus, been made for setting aside the impugned orders passed by the Courts below by allowing the present revision petition.

(2.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that it is a settled proposition of law that the Rent Controller has no option but to pass an order of eviction in case the provisional rent as assessed is not tendered on or before the date which is fixed by the Court for such tender. In the present case, the provisional rent was assessed by the Rent Controller on 27.11.2013 fixing the date as 03.02.2014 for tender of the such assessed provisional rent. On the said date, the tender of the rent was not made as is apparent from the order passed by the Rent Controller and adjournment was sought on his behalf. It is because of this reason, the counsel as well as the respondent-landlord had left the Court premises. With a mala fide intention subsequently an application has been moved for tendering of provisional rent and therefore, it cannot be said to be tendered especially when there was no impediment in submitting the same to the Court or deposit it. He, instead, only got his statement recorded before the Court with regard to he being ready to tender the provisional rent. His further contention is that even on the next date of hearing, which was ultimately fixed by the Court as 24.05.2014, no effort was made to tender the provisional rent as assessed which shows that the petitioner did not have the amount ready for making such tender. Prayer has, thus, been made for dismissing the present revision petition as the impugned orders are in accordance with law.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the orders which have been passed by the Courts below.