- (1.) Challenge in the present revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution by the petitioner-landlord is to the order dated 21.11.2013 (Annexure P/6) and subsequent orders dated 23.11.2013 (Annexure P/9) and 23.8.2014 (Annexure P/11) whereby his application for evicting the respondent-tenant on the ground of non depositing the provisional rent has been rejected. Counsel for the petitioner-landlord has placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in Rakesh Wadhawan and others v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and others, 2002 131 PunLR 370 and Division Bench of this Court in Rajan @ Raj Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar, 2010 158 PunLR 201 to submit that once the balance provisional rent was not tendered on the date fixed i.e. 21.11.2013, the eviction order should have been passed and the Rent Controller, Narwana was not justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner.
(2.) A perusal of the fact would go on to show that the eviction petition dated 27.9.2011 (Annexure P/1) came to be filed against the respondent-tenant from shop No. 19 on the ground of non payment of rent from 1.10.2008. The rent was claimed at Rs. 1024/- per month from 1.4.2009 and for the subsequent period it was at the enhanced rate mentioned in the petition. It is matter of fact that on the first date itself the tenant put in appearance on 22.11.2011 and tendered a sum of Rs. 8910/- from 1.4.2011 to 31.2.2012 including the cost and interest. On the statement of the counsel for the landlord case was fixed for fixing of provisional rent. It was alleged that tenant was not paying rent as per rent note and was disputing the rate of rent. Subsequently, on 22.10.2013 (Annexure P/5), the Rent Controller, Narwana assessed the rent at Rs. 900/- per month to be fair and equitable rent and imposed a cost of Rs. 1000/- and interest at me rate of 6% per annum from the date the tenant was in arrears of rent and the case was fixed for 21.11.2013 for payment of balance amount. It is pertinent to mention here that amount was not quantified as has been laid down by this Court in Gurpreet Singh and another v. Brijinder Bhardwaj and another, 2011 163 PunLR 212 and thus tenant did not have any specific amount which had to be tendered as such on the date fixed which was 21.11.2013.
(3.) On the said date, the Rent Controller, Narwana referred the matter to the Lok Adalat which was being held on 23.11.2013 keeping in view the fact that the nature of the case was such and it was fixed for payment of balance amount of rent. The petitioner-landlord immediately filed an application dated 23.11.2013 (Annexure P/7) that the provisional rent had not been tendered and eviction order should have been passed. On the date fixed i.e. 23.11.2013 the tenant stated that he was tendering the provisional rent of Rs. 29,700/- for the period of 33 months i.e. from 1.4.2011 to 31.3.2013 + interest of Rs. 2450/- and Rs. 1000/- as costs. However, the authorised representative of the landlord refused to take the tendered amount since it had to be tendered on 21.11.2013. Accordingly, compromise which was to be arrived at before the Lok Adalat could not be reached and matter was sent back. The tenant filed reply and mentioned that exact amount had not been quantified in the order and case had been sent before the Lok Adalat for tendering of rent and the landlord refused to accept the rent and therefore, there was no fault on the part of the tenant and the case had been put up before the Lok Adalat with the consent of the parties. The Rent Controller, Narwana dismissed the application of the landlord on the ground that matter had been sent to the Lok Adalat with the consent of the parties and was of such nature which could be compromised and there was no fault on the part of the tenant and the Court had never granted any extension and only in case of wilful default, the ejectment was to be ordered. Accordingly, the application was dismissed with costs of Rs. 500/-.;