NEK RAM SOOD Vs. GURDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, passed an order for eviction of the respondent on the ground that he was in arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 2,100. The respondent went in appeal before the learned Appellate Authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,# 1949, as applicable to the Union Territory of Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The said Authority admitted the appeal and stayed the operation of the order passed by the Rent Controller on July 18, 1977. The petitioner -landlord approached the Appellate Authority with a prayer that since the respondent was in arrears of rent stay of the operation of the order under appeal should be granted only by putting the appellant on suitable terms regarding the payment of arrears of rent. That application was rejected by the Appellate Authority. The landlord has come in a revision petition under Section 15(5) of the Act.

(2.) IT is settled law that mere filing of an appeal does not operate as stay of an order passed by the trial Court and the appellate Court or Authority while granting interim relief always looks to the balance of convenience of the parties. Non -payment of rent is one of the recognised conditions of ejectment of a tenant under the Act. If arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 2,100 had accrued against the other party the learned Appellate Authority while granting the stay order should have at least made some provision for the payment of this amount. In a suitable case the Court can either order the payment of arrears of rent in instalments or it can ask the appellant to furnish security that in the event of dismissal of his or her appeal the arrears of rent would be paid. When the right of the landlord is not suitably protected the tenant after utilising the premises for a fairly long period could walk out without any serious inconvenience after an order of ejectment is passed against him. In such cases I am prima facie of the opinion that the Courts are under a duty to hold that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the landlord and not the tenant who is in arrears of rent. In the circumstances, I allow this petition and direct that the order under appeal before the Appellate Authority shall be stayed only after tenant deposits the arrears of rent up to date in that Court within one month from today and continues to deposit the monthly rent during the pendency of the appeal. In case he fails to do so, it shall be open to the landlord to seek his eviction in accordance with law. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Revision allowed.