- (1.) The questions involved in this revision petition are as under:- i) Whether an advocate engaged by a party can authorize another advocate to appear for him if he is prevented by a reasonable cause from appearing and conducting the proceedings at any hearing? ii) Whether an advocate, who appears on behalf of another advocate engaged by a party, can only plead and cannot act on behalf of the said party without a document in writing in his favour? iii) Whether a sub-tenant cannot be ordered to be evicted only on the ground of non-payment of rent?
(2.) A few facts are required to be noticed in order to find out answer to the aforesaid questions. Bhai Manbir Singh and Bhai Mandeep Singh [hereinafter referred to as "landlords"] filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short "the Act"] seeking eviction of M/s Good Luck Marketing Services Private Limited [hereinafter referred to as 'tenant"], Munish Sharda and Aryans International [hereinafter referred to as "sub-tenants"] from the First Floor of SCO Nos.32-35, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh [hereinafter referred to as "demised premises"] on the ground of non-payment of rent. On 03.02.2009, the Seamed Rent Controller passed the following order:- "Present: Sh. Rajbir Singh Guraon, Advocate, Counsel for the petitioners. Petition received by entrustment. It is checked and registered. Notice of the same be issued for 28.03.2009 to the respondents on filing of PF copy etc. Sd/- Sudhir Parmar CJ.RC/03.02.2009" On 28.03.2009, the learned Rent Controller passed the following order:- "Present: Sh. Rajbir Singh Guraon, Advocate, CI. for the petitioners. Sh. S.P. Chhatwal, Cl. for the respondent No.1. Sh. N.S. Bawa, Cl. for respondents No.2 & 3. Respondent served through summons. Vakalatnamas filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 by counsel named above. On request, to come up on 23.04.2009 for filing reply on behalf of all the respondents. Sd/- Sudhir Parmar CJ.RC/28.03.2009" On 23.04.2009, the learned Rent Controller passed the following order:- "Present: Counsel for the parties. WS on behalf of def. No.1 filed. Copy given. WS on behalf of def. No.2 and 3 not filed. At request, adjourned to 12.06.2009 for filing WS on behalf of def. No.2 and 3. Sd/- CJ.RC/23.04.2009" On 12.06.2009, the learned Rent Controller passed the following order- "Present: As before. File put up before me under the orders of Ld. District and Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, as the concerned PO has relinquished the charge. Now to come up on 18.08.2009 for the purpose already fixed. File be sent back to concerned Court immediately. Sd/- Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-cum-JMIC-Duty" On 18.08.2009, the learned Rent Controller passed the following order:- "Present: Counsel for the parties. Written statement by def. No.2 & 3 not filed. A date is requested. He, Now to come up on 28.08.2009 for filing written statement by def. No.2&3 Sd/- Sunil Kumar CJ(JD)/18.08.2009" On 24.08.2009, i.e. 4 days before the date fixed, the learned Rent Controller passed the following order:- "Present: None. File taken up today as I have to avail joining time from 25.08.2009 to 31.08.2009 and 30.08.2009 being Sunday. As such, case is adjourned to 28.10.2009 for the purpose already fixed. Parties/counsel be informed accordingly. Date:24.08.2009. Sd/-Sunil Kumar CJ(JD)/RC/JMIC/Chandigarh" On 28.10.2009, the learned Rent Controller passed the following order:- "Present Counsel for the parties. Written statement by def. No.2 & 3 not filed. However, an application for striking off defence of def. no./respondent no.2 & 3 has been moved by counsel for petitioners. Heard. In view of the reason mentioned in the application as well as submissions, the defence of def/respondents No.2 & 3 is hereby struck off. Now to come up on 25.11.2009 for consideration. Sd/- Sunil Kumar CJ(JD)/RC/28.10.2009" On 25.11.2009, the learned Rent Controller passed the following order:- "Present: Counsel for the parties. Heard on the point of provisional assessment of rent to be tendered by the respondent. At this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen for the purpose of provisional assessment of rent. The respondent has not disputed the rate of rent as claimed by the petitioner. Therefore, the provisional rate of rent is assessed at the admitted/claimed rate of Rs.25,920/- for the period 01.04.2008 to 30.06.2008 and @ Rs.27,994/- w.e.f. 01.07.2008 to 31.12.2008 and onwards, with interest @ 6% per annum and cost Rs. 1,000/-. Now to come up on 22.12.2009 for tendering rent by the respondent. Sd/-Sunil Kumar RC/25.11.2009" On 22.12.2009, the learned Rent Controller passed the, following order- "Present: As above. A date is requested. Heard. To come up on 24.12.2009 for tendering of rent Sd/-CJ/RC/22.12.2009." On 24.12.2009, the learned Rent Controller passed the following order:- "Present: Counsel for the parties. A perusal of the title reveals that vide order dated 25.11.2009 provisional rent was assessed and the case was adjourned to 04.12.2009 for tendering of provisional rent However, on the request of respondent, not objected by the petitioner, the case was adjourned for today i.e. 24.12.2009 for tendering the provisional rent. But today the respondent has failed to tender the provisional rent In Rakesh Wadhawan v. M/s Jagdamba International Corporation, 2002 131 PunLR 370, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the provisional rent as determined by the Controller shall be liable to be paid or tendered by the tenant on the first date of hearing falling after the date of preliminary/provisional order of controller. On the failure of the tenant to comply, nothing remains to be done and an order of eviction shall follow. Since the tenant/respondent has failed to comply the same, the law laid down in the judicial authority cited above squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, in view of the law laid down above, the respondent is liable to be ejected from the demised premises. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed with costs. The respondent is directed to vacate the demised premises within 2 months from today. Memo of costs be prepared and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance. Pronounced. 24.12.2009 Sd/- Sunil Kumar Rent Controller, Chandigarh"
(3.) The aforesaid order dated 24.12.2009 was challenged by the petitioners by way of statutory appeal in which it was alleged by them that they are tenants in the demised premises under the landlords at a monthly rent of Rs.25,920/-. On receipt of the summons for 28.03.2009, they had engaged Kulwant Singh Bawa, Advocate [for short "K.S. Bawa"] to contest the eviction petition, who told the petitioners that since it was a matter of civil nature, therefore, their presence was not required on each and even' date of hearing and he would inform them as and when the need would arise for the purpose of their appearance, as a result of which, the petitioners could not come present on each and every date of hearing and came to know on 30.03.2010 when the landlords threatened to take possession of the demised premises on the ground that an eviction order has already been passed against them. It is alleged that the petitioners rushed to the Court and found that their Advocate K.S. Bawa had already expired on 10.06.2009. Then, they engaged Anil Kumar Bhai, Advocate and had found that the presence of Narinder Singh Bawa, Advocate [for short "N.S. Bawa"] has been marked on each and every date of hearing even after the death of K.S. Bawa on 10.06.2009. It was further alleged that N.S. Bawa was not engaged by the petitioners to appear on their behalf and as such, his appearance before the learned Rent Controller on their behalf was inconsequential. However, the learned Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 05.01.2011. The petitioners has, thus, filed the present revision petition in order to challenge the validity of order dated 28.10.2009 by which their defence was struck off, order dated 24.12.2009 by which they have been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises due to non-tendering of rent and order dated 05.01.2011 by which their appeal has been dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority.;