RAJAN ALIAS RAJ KUMAR Vs. RAKESH KUMAR
LAWS(P&H)-2010-1-345
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on
January 07,2010
RAJAN ALIAS RAJ KUMAR
Appellant
VERSUS
RAKESH KUMAR
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
RUBBER HOUSE VS. EXCELSIOR NEEDLE INDUSTRIES (PRIVATE) LIMITED [REFERRED TO]RAJINDER KUMAR JOSHI VS. VEENA RANI [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH WADHAWAN VS. JAGDAMBA INDUSTRIES CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
VINOD KUMAR VS. PREM LATA [REFERRED TO]
RAJINDER LAL VS. GOPAL KRISHAN [REFERRED TO]
MADAN LAL VS. BALDEV RAJ [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
MADAN GOPAL MITTAL VS. NATH BASSI [LAWS(P&H)-2012-2-125] [REFERRED TO]ISWHAR DASS VS. SANJIV KUMAR [LAWS(P&H)-2011-2-206] [REFERRED TO]
ANUP BANSAL VS. HARJIT SINGH UPPAL [LAWS(P&H)-2010-9-306] [REFERRED TO]
SADHNA VS. BALDEV KRISHAN [LAWS(P&H)-2011-10-21] [REFERRED TO]
GURINDERJIT KAUR AND ORS. VS. BALDEV SINGH BOPARAI [LAWS(P&H)-2015-2-143] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN KUMAR VS. SHAM LAL AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2014-9-168] [REFERRED TO]
MAHABIR PARSHAD GARG VS. MAHABIR PARSHAD [LAWS(P&H)-2013-8-87] [REFERRED TO]
MALKIT KAUR VS. JOGINDER LAL KHURANA [LAWS(P&H)-2019-9-27] [REFERRED TO]
SANDEEP MEHRA VS. SAJESH KUMAR KHANNA [LAWS(P&H)-2011-9-70] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN JAIN VS. KULBIR KAUR [LAWS(P&H)-2011-3-227] [REFERRED TO]
SUDHIR KUMAR VS. KULDIP SINGH MALHOTRA [LAWS(P&H)-2010-9-154] [REFERRED TO]
RAVI SHANKAR VS. SATPAL [LAWS(P&H)-2017-3-59] [REFERRED TO]
DHARAM VIR VS. RAJ KUMAR BOOK BINDER [LAWS(P&H)-2012-1-144] [REFERRED TO]
MADAN LAL VS. TEK CHAND SHARMA [LAWS(P&H)-2011-3-264] [REFERRED TO]
SHARDA SHARMA VS. SOHAN LAL [LAWS(P&H)-2011-3-231] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KUMAR VS. SWARNA RANI [LAWS(P&H)-2013-10-809] [REFERRED TO]
GURVINDER SINGH VS. VINAYAK BAHL [LAWS(P&H)-2011-3-232] [REFERRED TO]
BIRINDER KHULLAR VS. MANINDER SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2011-3-237] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. BROWN MULTI-WALL PAPER BAGS LTD. VS. M/S. RAM LAL [LAWS(P&H)-2013-7-521] [REFERRED TO]
BACHAN SINGH VS. YADWINDER KUMAR [LAWS(P&H)-2010-1-517] [REFERRED TO]
SURINDER KUMAR VS. LEELA DEVI [LAWS(P&H)-2011-3-233] [REFERRED TO]
PARSHOTAM DAS GOEL VS. RAJENDER JAIN [LAWS(P&H)-2012-4-142] [REFERRED TO]
SANGEETA RANI VS. KAMALJIT SINGH BAJAJ [LAWS(P&H)-2014-11-605] [REFERRED]
DHRINDER PAL GUPTA VS. JIYA LAL [LAWS(P&H)-2013-8-194] [REFERRED]
ANWAR HUSSAIN VS. BHUPINDERJIT SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2014-12-426] [REFERRED]
KANTA VS. AVINASH KAUR [LAWS(P&H)-2014-4-465] [REFERRED TO]
BALWINDER SINGH VS. SARWAN KUMAR [LAWS(P&H)-2019-5-222] [REFERRED TO]
PARAMJIT KAUR VS. PARKASH JEWELLERS [LAWS(P&H)-2023-9-65] [REFERRED TO]
PREM SINGH VS. JOGINDER KAUR [LAWS(P&H)-2012-1-69] [REFERRED TO]
SUMAN VS. LAL SINGH PARIHAR [LAWS(P&H)-2014-10-290] [REFERRED]
ASHOK KUMAR VS. GURDEV SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2019-10-229] [REFERRED TO]
SANJEET SINGH VS. MOHALI MOTOR FINANCE CO. [LAWS(P&H)-2011-4-79] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This reference has been made by a learned Single Judge on February 5, 2007 in view of differing interpretations given by two Single Judges of this Court, to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Rakesh Wadhawan v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, 2002 AIR(SC) 2004.
(2.)In the reference order, the learned Single Judge has made reference to a judgment of this Court in case Rajinder Lal v. Gopal Krishan,2006 2 PLR 124, which the learned Counsel for the petitioner had relied upon to contend that even if the petitioner had failed to pay the arrears of provisional rent as assessed by the learned Rent Controller, an opportunity for regular trial has to be given to the petitioner. The view taken by the learned Single Judge in that judgment is contained in para No. 18 which reads thus:
18. After harmoniously construing conclusion Nos. 4,5 and 6.1, I am of the opinion that the failure to deposit provisional rent assessed will not entail passing of the eviction order. The eviction order can be passed only after conclusion f the trial after giving opportunities or hearing to the parties as required under Section 13(2) of the Act. If, however, the final order of the Rent Controller is in terms of the provisional rent assessed, the tenant is not entitled to any other opportunity to tender rent as he has failed to comply with the order of provisional assessment of rent. But in case, in the final order passed by the Rent Controller, rent determined is less than the order of provisional assessment of rent, the tenant would be entitled to another opportunity to make up the deficiency in respect of such arrears of rent. However, if the amount tendered is in excess, the tenant is entitled to refund. The above conclusion alone would be in tune with the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is preposterous to say that on failure of payment of provisional rent, i.e. Ad-interim order, the eviction order shall follow without giving a reasonable opportunity to the tenant to controvert the stand of the landlord on the basis of evidence led that such provisional rent was not correctly assessed.
(3.)On the contrary, learned Counsel for the respondent has, placed reliance upon judgment of another learned Single Judge reported as Madan Lal and Anr. v. Baldev Raj,2004 2 PLR 834, to contend that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra) clearly lays down that in case the tenant fails to make the payment of rent, assessed by the learned Rent Controller provisionally, the order of ejectment has to follow and nothing more is required to be done by the learned Rent Controller.
(2.)In the reference order, the learned Single Judge has made reference to a judgment of this Court in case Rajinder Lal v. Gopal Krishan,2006 2 PLR 124, which the learned Counsel for the petitioner had relied upon to contend that even if the petitioner had failed to pay the arrears of provisional rent as assessed by the learned Rent Controller, an opportunity for regular trial has to be given to the petitioner. The view taken by the learned Single Judge in that judgment is contained in para No. 18 which reads thus:
18. After harmoniously construing conclusion Nos. 4,5 and 6.1, I am of the opinion that the failure to deposit provisional rent assessed will not entail passing of the eviction order. The eviction order can be passed only after conclusion f the trial after giving opportunities or hearing to the parties as required under Section 13(2) of the Act. If, however, the final order of the Rent Controller is in terms of the provisional rent assessed, the tenant is not entitled to any other opportunity to tender rent as he has failed to comply with the order of provisional assessment of rent. But in case, in the final order passed by the Rent Controller, rent determined is less than the order of provisional assessment of rent, the tenant would be entitled to another opportunity to make up the deficiency in respect of such arrears of rent. However, if the amount tendered is in excess, the tenant is entitled to refund. The above conclusion alone would be in tune with the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is preposterous to say that on failure of payment of provisional rent, i.e. Ad-interim order, the eviction order shall follow without giving a reasonable opportunity to the tenant to controvert the stand of the landlord on the basis of evidence led that such provisional rent was not correctly assessed.
(3.)On the contrary, learned Counsel for the respondent has, placed reliance upon judgment of another learned Single Judge reported as Madan Lal and Anr. v. Baldev Raj,2004 2 PLR 834, to contend that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra) clearly lays down that in case the tenant fails to make the payment of rent, assessed by the learned Rent Controller provisionally, the order of ejectment has to follow and nothing more is required to be done by the learned Rent Controller.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.