RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. - (1.) Union of India has filed the instant revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 08.01.2010 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, whereby its eviction has been ordered from the demised premises for non-compliance of the order of provisional assessment and has further challenged order dated 14.06.2011 of the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, dismissing the appeal against the aforesaid orders of eviction.
(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, it is suffice to say that the respondent-landlord filed an eviction application against the petitioners for non-payment of rent and also on the ground of personal necessity. Upon notice, the petitioner-Union of India raised preliminary objections stating that the respondent-landlord has no locus standi to file the ejectment petition as she is neither owner nor landlady of the demised premises. However, it was further averred that the demised premises were hired in the year 1972 through one Bishan Singh, special power of attorney holder of Smt. Harjinder Kaur-respondent. The said special power of attorney also executed a lease deed in the year 1989 which was extended till September 1994 but during this period, the said special power of attorney died on 20.08.1991. Thereafter, the son of the special power of attorney had been pressing for the payment of the rent. No one visited the office of the petitioner for clarification of certain doubts about the authenticity of the documents submitted by them. On merits, it was pleaded that respondent was not landlady of the demised premises. Other pleas were denied. It was specifically denied that the petitioners were making irregular payment of rent. Finally, prayer for dismissal of the petition was sought. The Rent Controller, Chandigarh, assessed the provisional rent vide order dated 14.11.2009, which reads thus: Present: Counsel for the parties. Submissions on assessment of rent heard. Petitioner submitted that the rate of rent is Rs. 4560/- per month payable by the respondent w.e.f. 01.07.1992 onwards excluding water and electricity charges. On the other hand, the counsel for respondent submitted that the petitioner is neither the owner of the premises nor the landlady. It has been further submitted that respondent never denied for payment of rent but same could not be paid due to the reason explained since the identity of the petitioner is doubtful. Respondent is ready to make the payment, he has not disputed the payment of rent but disputed the identity of the petitioner. Although name of the petitioner and husband name is same but the respondent is denied the petitioner as the same petitioner and address of the petitioner is also same. Since there is no criminal complaint of misappropriation, this point requires leading of evidence by both the parties. However, in the meantime, the assessment of rent is made and the rate of rent is fixed Rs. 3560/- p.m. payable by the respondent w.e.f. 01.07.1992 to till date alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. and costs of Rs. 600/- excluding water and electricity charges. Respondent is directed to pay the assessed rent on 07.01.2010. Sd/- RC/14.11.2009
(3.) Thereafter, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners nor the rent was tendered. Petitioners were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 08.01.2010 and their eviction was ordered by passing the following order: 1. Smt. Harjinder Kaur (hereinafter referred to as petitioner) has filed this petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, for eviction of the respondents from entire floor of Kothi#3136, Sector 21-D, Chandigarh. 2. On notice, the respondents appeared and filed written statement, wherein they took preliminary objection that petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition as she is neither owner nor landlady of the premises. All other averments of the petition were denied by the respondent. 3. Thereafter on 14.11.2009, assessment was made by the Court. The provisional rent of premises was assessed at Rs. 3560/- payable w.e.f. 1.7.1992 alongwith interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and costs of Rs. 600/-. Today, the case was fixed for payment of rent. The respondent not only pay the rent but also did not appear in this case but even failed to tender the rent assessed by the Court. Accordingly, in view of the ratio of the authority Rakesh Wadhwan v. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and Ors., 2003 (2) Civil Court Case (SC) 361 wherein it was held that the respondent-tenant is bound to pay the rent after the assessment, on the first date of hearing. In case, the rent is not paid and on failure of the tenant to comply with the order of assessment, after the passing of the same by the Rent Controller, the eviction will follow. In this case, the respondent not only failed to appear but he also failed to tender the rent assessed by the Court. Accordingly, the petition is allowed exparte and the respondent is directed to vacate the premises in question entire ground floor of Kothi#3136, Sector 21-D, Chandigarh within a period of two months from today. Memo of costs be prepared. File be consigned to the records. Announced 08.01.2010 Sd/- (Mahesh Kumar) Rent Controller Chandigarh ;