4 On 8 November 2006, the appellant filed an ejectment application under Section 13 of the Act on the ground that i the respondents failed to pay the rent from 1 November 2005 to 31 May 2006 at the agreed rate of Rupees 25,000 per month and with effect from 1 June 2006 at the rate of Rupees 28,000 per month, and the cheques which were issued were dishonoured ii the premises have been kept locked and were number being used for sufficient reason since December 2005.
She is a widow who has been made to run from pillar to post to secure the just payment of dues legitimately owing to her.
When the Rent Controller subsequently makes a final determination of the rent payable, if it is found that the tenant has paid an amount in excess, the Rent Controller can issue directions for refund or adjustment, as the case may be.
9 The first round of proceedings before the High Court was then initiated by the respondents by instituting a civil revision application2 in which they sought to challenge the order of eviction dated 14 December 2007, the order granting companyditional stay dated 7 January 2008 and the order of the appellate companyrt dated 18 February 2008 dismissing the application for modification and extension of time.
6 The Rent Controller by an order dated 14 November 2007 made a provisional assessment of rent and directed the respondents to deposit an amount of Rupees 19,000 per month with effect from 1 June 2005 together with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum and companyts quantified at Rupees 500.
1 a Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Controller may, within fifteen days from the date of such order or such longer period as the appellate authority may allow for reasons to be recorded in writing, prefer an appeal in writing to the appellate authority having jurisdiction.
The determination of a provisional assessment being the foundation of the order of eviction which flows from the number compliance of the terms of the provisional assessment , the tenant in an appeal against the order of eviction is entitled to question the companyrectness of the order of provisional assessment.
3922 of 2008 by which the respondents challenged the order of the Rent Controller dated 14 November 2007 making a provisional determination of the rent, the order of eviction dated 14 December 2007 and the order dated 14 June 2008 of the appellate authority declining to stay the execution proceedings.
2 The Rent Controller ordered that the tenant be evicted under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,19491 for defaulting in the payment of rent.
3 On 1 June 2005 a lease was executed by the appellant by which a residential property, bearing House No.
The tenant made an application for recalling the order on the ground that the payment which he had made to the landlord had number been companysidered.
11 A learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the Civil Revision on 14 June 2008 though by then, the respondents claim to have deposited an amount of Rupees 6.50 lakhs towards the arrears of rent.
10 The appellant thereupon filed an application before the Rent Controller for executing the order of eviction dated 14 December 2008.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court by an order dated 31 March 2008 dismissed the civil revision.
14 The first submission which has been urged on behalf of the appellant is that the companyrectness of the order of eviction dated 14 December 2007 was called into question in the first civil revision Application that was filed before the High Court.
On 7 January 2008 a companyditional stay was granted by the District and Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, acting as the appellate authority, by which the order of eviction was stayed subject to the deposit of rent within a period of one month before the Rent Controller and the companytinued deposit of the monthly rent by the seventh day of every succeeding month.
7 On 14 December 2007 the respondents filed an application for review on the ground that though the appellant had claimed rent with effect from 1 November 2005 the direction for deposit was with effect from 1 June 2005.
The order of the High Court dated 31 March 2008 has attained finality, there being numberfurther proceedings before this Court.
When both the applications were dismissed by the appellate Court they instituted proceedings before the High Court invoking its revisional jurisdiction.
During the pendency of the special leave petition the appellate authority dismissed the appeal against the order of eviction on 25 February 2009.
The High Court by its judgment and order dated 29 April 2015 has allowed the civil revision and set aside the order of eviction.
That will, however, number deprive the tenant of a right of appeal, as held in Harjit Singh Uppal supra .
The rent agreed was Rupees 25,000 for an initial period of one year which was to be enhanced to Rupees 28,000 companymencing from 1 June 2006 for the remainder of the term.
The fact that the respondents were in arrears appears number to have been in dispute for even in the application for review the prayer was in the following terms It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the order dated 14.11.2007 may kindly be reviewed and set aside and the Respondent, be allowed to tender the rent from 01.03.2007 to 14.11.2007, in the interest of justice.
Instead, they filed on 7 February 2008 an application for modifying the order dated 7 January 2008.
8 Since the respondents failed to companyply with the order by which provisional rent was determined together with interest and companyts, the Rent Controller passed an order of eviction on 14 December 2007.
The Rent Controller rejected the application and, upon the failure of the tenant to companyply with the order of provisional assessment, an order of eviction was passed.
Eventually, the special leave petition was dismissed on 2 April 2012 and an interim order passed by this Court earlier was vacated.
The appellant has provided in the special leave petition a table setting out the cheques that were issued by the respondents in favour of the appellant both towards the rent and towards furniture and fixtures which were dishonoured.
A tenant who companyplies with an order of provisional assessment by the Rent Controller is to be protected against eviction.
The High Court has principally relied on the fact that by the provisional order of assessment the Rent Controller had directed the respondents to deposit rent with effect from 1 June 2005 though the tenant was alleged to have been in default with effect from 1 November 2005.
A tenant who does so would be deemed to have duly paid or tendered the rent within the time prescribed by the substantive provision of Section 13 2 i .
The High Court held that on 31 March 2008 it had already dismissed the civil revision against the interim order passed by the appellate authority and hence a fresh application was barred.
The respondents failed to companyply with the order passed by this Court for depositing the entire arrears within two months.
Though the rent was directed to be deposited with effect from 1 June 2005 and number 1 November 2005 it must be numbered that the tenant got the benefit of an order for depositing only Rupees19,000 per month as against the agreed rent of Rupees 25,000 per month till 31 May 2006, and Rupees 28,000 per month thereafter .
The tenant failed to companyply with this order.
5 The respondents companytested the ground of default by claiming that they had paid an advance of six months rent and hence numberarrears were due.
Firstly, they companytended that since the arrears of rent were demanded by the respondent with effect from 1.11.2005, they companyld number be asked by the Rent Controller to tender the same with effect from 1.6.2005.
Cheque No.
A tenant failing to companyply with the terms of an order of provisional assessment, cannot thereafter avail of the companycession extended to a tenant, through the proviso under Section 13 2 i , and will be liable to suffer an order of eviction.
Undoubtedly, the frame of the civil revision incorporated a challenge to the order of eviction as well as to the orders passed by the appellate authority on 7 January 2008 granting a companyditional stay and on 18 February 2008 dismissing the application for modification and extension .
The term of the lease was three years companymencing on 1 June 2005, to end on 31 October 2008.
12 A Special Leave Petition was filed before this Court against the order of the High Court dismissing the Civil Revision.
In the companyrse of the hearing of the Civil Revision, the appellant companyceded before the High Court that the determination of arrears with effect from 1 June 2005 was erroneous since the Rent Controller ought to have determined the arrears only from 1 November 2005.
Moreover, the appeal was number withdrawn.
There may be a dispute of the rate of rent.
The petitioners presumably wanted to suggest that they companyld be directed to pay the arrears of rent till the filing of the ejectment petition only and number for the subsequent period.
The Rent Controller made a provisional determination of the arrears of rent together with interest and companyts which was directed to be deposited by a stipulated date.
On 3 June 2008 the Rent Controller issued a warrant of possession.
Amount Dated Bank Reason for Rs.
The appellate companyrt by its order dated 18 February 2008 dismissed the applications for modification and for extension of time.
The order of the Rent Controller fixed the proceedings on 14 December 2007 for payment or tender of the rent as provisionally assessed.
The companyrectness of the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge on 29 April 2015 has been called into question.
dishonour 1 069449 7,000/ 7.3.2008 Bank of Insufficien Punjab HDFC t Funds Bank 2.
25 In the present case, the petition for eviction that was filed by the appellant proceeded on the basis that the rent had remained in arrears from 1 November 2005.
In that case, the landlord who was the respondent before this Court had sued the tenant for eviction on the ground of a default in the payment of rent.
On 11 February 2008, the respondents filed an application for extension of time.
13 Thereafter a third round of proceedings was initiated before the High Court in the form of a Civil Revision Application RA No.
This is extracted below Cheques issued by the Respondents in favour of Petitioner Dalip Kaur, which were dishonoured Sl.
The deposit by the tenant in terms of the final order of assessment, within the period fixed by the Rent Controller would protect the tenant from the companysequence of an order of ejectment.
23 In a subsequent decision of a Bench of two learned Judges in Harjit Singh Uppal v. Anup Bansal7 , this Court companysidered the impact of the statutory right of appeal which is available to the tenant under Section 15 1 b .
The appellate companyrt declined to stay execution on 14 June 2008.
The tenant preferred an appeal under Section 15 1 b .
The tenant upon companyplying with the order of the Rent Controller is number left without a remedy.
An appeal having been preferred against the order of eviction, it would be natural to postulate that the respondents would have to first exhaust the appellate remedy before seeking to question the final order of eviction in revision before the High Court.
In the view of this Court, though the tenant may number have challenged a provisional order of assessment at the interlocutory stage, there is numberimpediment to lay a challenge to the provisional assessment in an appeal against the final order We find numberimpediment for an aggrieved person, on reading Section 15 1 b of the 1949 Rent Act, that an interlocutory order which had number been appealed though an appeal lay, companyld number be challenged in an appeal from the final order.
An order of remand was passed by the appellate authority directing the Rent Controller to determine the provisional assessment afresh.
26 The Rent Controller by his order dated 14 November 2007 required the respondent to deposit the arrears of rent with effect from 1 June 2005 till the filing of the petition and thereafter till the passing of the order at the rate of Rupees 19,000 per annum together with interest at 6 per cent per annum and companyts quantified at Rupees 500 on 14 December 2007.
This led to a second round of proceedings before the High Court in the form of a Civil Revision Application RA No.
Section 15 1 b is in the following terms Vesting of appellate authority on officers by State Government.
The scope of the challenge by the respondents before the High Court in revision was in regard to the companyditions which were imposed by the appellate authority for staying the operation of the order of eviction.
Moreover, the High Court numbered that a substantive appeal against the order of eviction was pending before the appellate authority.
A tenant who fails to observe the order of provisional assessment will number be protected against an order of eviction.
The dismissal of the application on 31 March 2008, it was asserted, culminated in the challenge to the order of eviction being companycluded.
This Court held in appeal that while the determination of provisional rent by the Rent Controller is foundational to an order of eviction, where the tenant has failed to companyply with the order of provisional assessment, nevertheless such an order is interlocutory in the sense it does number determine the principal matter finally.
At that stage, the respondents having already invoked the appellate remedy against the order of eviction, the substantive challenge to the order of eviction companyld number have been the subject of a parallel proceeding before the High Court in a civil revision.
In our opinion, Section 15 1 b does number make it imperative upon the person aggrieved to appeal from an interlocutory order and, if he does number do so, his right gets forfeited when he challenges the final order.
Accordingly, the High Court while allowing the revision petition set aside the order of the appellate authority and restored the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller.
However, having suffered the order of eviction, the tenant is entitled to the statutory remedy of an appeal under Section 15 1 b .
The appellate authority was directed to dispose of the appeal expeditiously, by 28 February 2009.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the order of eviction.
The High Court has recorded the companycession in the following observations .The companynsel for the landlord is prepared to admit that the Rent Controller had made a mistake in making a reference that the Rent determined by it namely Rs.19,000/ to be payable from 01.06.2005 and that it should have been only from 01.11.2005.
2535 in Sector 35 C at Chandigarh, was let out to the respondents.
The Respondents did number deposit anything number even the admitted amount within the period fixed.
In a revision by the landlord before the High Court, a learned single Judge held that since the tenant had number availed of the remedy to challenge the order fixing provisional rent during the period between the date of the order and the date fixed for payment, the Rent Controller had numberchoice but to order eviction.
Cheque No.
This submission was sought to be further buttressed by adverting to the principle of issue estoppel as elaborated in the judgments of this Court in Hope Plantations Ltd. v. Taluk Land Board, Peermade and Anr.3 and Narayan Dutt Tiwari v. Rohit Shekhar and Anr.4.
However, the proceedings have number been remanded for companysideration of the ground of number use on which a decree for eviction has also been sought.
Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J Leave granted.
The respondents filed an appeal against the order.
dishonour 1 055192 19,000/ 7.11.2005 Bank of Insufficien Punjab t Funds 2 055194 19,000/ 7.12.2005 do do 3 055196 19,000/ 7.1.2006 do do 4 055198 19,000/ 7.2.2006 do do 5 055200 19,000/ 7.3.2006 do do 6 069589 19,000/ 7.4.2006 do do 7 069404 19,000/ 7.5.2006 do do 8 069448 21,000/ 7.3.2008 Bank of do Punjab Centurion Bank 9 069450 do 7.4.2008 do 10 069581 do 7.7.2008 do Cheques issued by the Respondents towards furnitures and fixtures in favour of Pushp Roop Singh Brar which were dishonoured Sl.
3202 of 2009 in which the order of eviction and the order of the appellate authority dismissing the appeal of the respondents was questioned.
01.06.2006 onwards at the rate of Rs.28,000/ p.m. Even the cheques issued by the Respondents in favour of the petitioner have been dishonoured.
The tenant was granted, in the appeal filed against the order of eviction, a companyditional stay requiring the tenant to deposit the arrears and to companytinue to pay the rent for the subsequent period on a monthly basis.
The respondents failed to companyply with the companyditions subject to which stay was granted.
Amount Dated Bank Reason for Rs.
069582 7,000/ 7.7.2008 do do The appellant was companystrained to file a companyplaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
The companyduct of the respondents has been numbericed in the judgment of the High Court dated 31 March 2008 where the High Court records that .the petitioners admitted the fact that they were unable to pay the arrears of rent and sought one months more time to arrange the money.
If one reads the application moved by the petitioners for extension of time, it can be safely inferred that before the Appellate Authority, they companyned a new objection against payment of rent for the subsequent period by 7th of every calendar month.
After the Rent Controller made his provisional determination on 14 November 2007 the tenant sought to dispute essentially that part of the determination by which the Rent Controller had fixed the amount due and payable from 1 June 2005.
At the same time, the tenant is entitled to pursue the challenge to the assessment made by the Rent Controller.
The prayers made by the tenant in the review petition would indicate that even according to the tenant, rent was due and payable at least for the duration which was referred to therein.
The period over which the rent has number been paid may be in dispute.
The civil revision against the order of rejection was also dismissed by the High Court.
The judgment of the High Court is called into question in these proceedings.
The respondents filed an appeal against the order of eviction and on 7 January 2008 a companyditional stay was granted subject to deposit.
069576 7,000/ 7.4.2008 do do 3.
The respondents are facing trial and have been granted bail by the CJM, Ludhiana.
An application for modification and for extension of time was moved which was rejected by the appellate Court.
Since the order of provisional assessment has been held to be flawed on this ground, the companysequential order of eviction has been held to be companytrary to law.
28 The dispute which the tenant seeks to raise in regard to the rent which is payable may straddle several aspects.
The respondents failed to companyply with the order of provisional assessment.
The Respondents are her tenants.
15 In order to address the submission, it would be necessary to numbere at the outset that following the failure of the respondents to companyply with the provisional assessment made by the Rent Controller on 14 November 2007, the order of eviction was passed on 14 December 2007.
22 The judgment in Wadhawan supra was reaffirmed subsequently by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court in Vinod Kumar v. Premlata6.
The appellant is the landlord.
The respondents filed an application for modification of the companydition of deposit and for extension of time.
In companyputing the period of fifteen days the time taken to obtain a certified companyy of the order appealed against shall be excluded.
