- (1.) Tenant State Bank of India, petitioner herein, had faced petition for its eviction from the premises in dispute on the ground of non-payment of rent @ Rs.8,000/- per month since 18.4.1999. Finding fault with the stand of the landlord and holding the petition of eviction to be devoid of any merit, the same was dismissed on 8.8.2007 by the Rent Controller, Nabha. Appeal preferred by the landlord was adjudicated by the Appellate Authority, Patiala under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter mentioned as the Rent Act) on 4.8.2009 wherein reversing the impugned orders of the Rent Controller, accepting the petition of the landlord, finding it to be a case of short tender by the tenant making a detailed order of assessment of arrears of rent with interest etc. the tenant-bank had been called upon to make up deficiency in the short tender. Relevant operative portion of the order of the Appellate Authority is as below: "Accordingly, in my view since the respondent bank did not make the tender in court at the rate of Rs.4000/- per month for the first two years and at the rate of Rs.4600/- per month i.e. with 15% increase for the next five years, as such the tender made by respondent to petitioner/appellate is short. But due to this short tender made by the respondent, no ejectment order can be passed straightway. In view of Rakesh Wadhawan's case even if the tender is short, sufficient time is to be granted to the respondent to pay the arrears of rent to the petitioner/appellant. Accordingly, the appeal filed by petitioner/appellant is partly allowed and the judgment/order dated 8.8.2007 passed by learned Rent Controller is set aside and the respondent bank is directed to make good the arrears of rent which have been paid less to the petitioner/appellant within two months from today. The arrears which are to be paid by the respondent to the petitioner/appellant are as under: 1) Rs.9000/- which has been paid less by the respondent to the petitioner/appellant for the first six months; 2) The difference of arrears of rent at the enhanced rate to the tune of Rs.4600/- per month w.e.f. 15.4.2001 to 14.4.2006; 3) The difference of arrears of rent at the enhanced rate to the tune of Rs.5290/- per month w.e.f. 15.4.2006 till date. The respondent bank is also liable to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the above said arrears of rent. In case the respondent bank failed to pay this amount, then the ejectment order will follow. Memo of costs be prepared."
(2.) Rather than complying with the order of the Appellate Authority, the tenant-bank instead made an application under Section 31 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934 (hereinafter mentioned as the Indebtedness Act). The Rent Controller noticed that the tenant-bank had not tendered the rent in terms of the order of the Appellate Authority and thus tender of arrears of rent before the Rent Controller had continued to be the short. Dismissing the said application of the tenant-bank on 9.10.2010, it was held that the tenant-bank was at fault in making compliance with the orders of the Appellate Authority. Relevant portion of the impugned order (Annexure P-4) for ready reference is reproduced as below: "Instead, from the act and conduct of the Bank it seems that the bank is cheating the decree holder and misleading the court by taking the false and frivolous pleas and moving the unwarranted application under any provision of law. Hence there is nothing to grant any such opportunity to make up the deficiency of short tender and to stay the execution proceedings. Further the application is not maintainable which is not in compliance of above referred observations/directions of learned Appellate Authority. Hence the application under reference is hereby dismissed with specific observation that such act and conduct is not expected from such a responsible bank and that too for his landlord."
(3.) Stand of the tenant-bank in this revision petition is that the bank had never put the payment of deficiency in arrears on hold and has rather been always ready and willing to comply with the order of the Appellate Authority. However, it has been claimed that the Appellate Authority did not comply with the law laid down in Rakesh Wadhawan Versus M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and others, 2003 2 CivCC 361 whereby it is the duty of the Rent Controller to make assessment of the arrears of rent and then to afford an opportunity to the tenant to make such deposit and only on failure of tenant to comply with such order, eviction can follow.;