The petition under Section 13 of the 1949 Rent Act was filed by the Respondent landlord to evict the appellant tenant from Komfort Banquet Hall, Zirakpur Panchkula Road, Zirakpur, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District S.A.S. Nagar Mohali for short, the premises before the Court of Rent Controller, Dera Bassi on December 6, 2008.
However, this Court need number enter into the companytroversy as to if the payment of the bearer cheques, was received by the respondent landlord or number as it would be for the Ld.
The landlord challenged the order passed by the Appellate Authority in the revision petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
If the amount deposited by the tenant is found to be in excess, the Controller may direct a refund.
1,50,000/ per month.
4,00,000/ vide cheque No.
1 a 1 b 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.
37,00,950/ to the landlord by way of cheques has number at all been companysidered.
Of necessity, the date of first hearing of the application would mean the date falling after the date of such order by the Controller.
The said cheques were the bearer cheques and were allegedly got encashed by the Manager of the respondent.
In Section 13 2 i proviso, the words assessed by the Controller qualify number merely the words the companyt of application but the entire preceding part of the sentence i.e. the arrears of rent and interest at six per cent per annum on such arrears together with the companyt of application.
It was held, relying upon a decision of this Court in Rakesh Wadhawan and others v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and others1, that on the failure of the tenant to companyply with the order of the provisional assessment of arrears of rent, numberhing remains to be done and order of eviction has to follow.
37,00,950/ having been made to the landlord from April, 2007.
If the tenant makes companypliance, the inquiry shall companytinue for finally adjudicating upon the dispute as to the arrears of rent in the light of the companytending pleas raised by the landlord and the tenant before the Controller.
It is the case of the landlord that tenant stopped paying the rent since April, 2007 regularly.
37,00,950/ having been made towards rent from April, 2007 to the landlord and iv the whole companyduct of the tenant had been to prolong the litigation and it was to achieve this objective that the tenant companytinued to make applications one after the other before the Rent Controller which companyld number be legally maintained and were frivolous and without merit.
This, the tenant said, was required to prove the factum of payment made by him to the landlord.
27,84,875.04.
However, the assessment order dated 11.6.2009 passed by the Ld.
The tenant preferred an appeal under Section 15 1 b of the 1949 Rent Act before the Appellate Authority assailing the 1 2002 5 SCC 440 orders dated April 7, 2010 and June 11, 2009 passed by the Rent Controller.
The tenant challenged the order dated April 7, 2010 and also the order dated June 11, 2009 in appeal.
The tenant claimed adjustment of that amount.
The Court summed up the companyclusions as follows 30.
Rent Controller did number apply his mind and accepted the figures mentioned by the respondent landlord in the rejoinder in the mechanical manner.
Since the Rent Controller failed to even companysider the statement of payment tendered by the tenant, the tenant made an application for recall of the order dated June 11, 2009.
He also stated in the written statement that he has been paying rent to the landlord regularly mostly by cheques and from 2007 he has paid Rs.
He claimed adjustment of those payments while assessing provisional rent.
Section 15 1 b of the 1949 Rent Act provides, to a person aggrieved by an order passed by the Rent Controller, a remedy of appeal.
The Rent Controller companysidered all these applications together and by her order dated April 7, 2010 rejected each one of these applications.
The tenant filed written statement and traversed the case set up by the landlord in the petition for eviction.
The Appellate Authority also directed the Rent Controller to give to the parties an opportunity to produce the documents affidavits in support of their rival stand in respect of the rent.
Accordingly, the Rent Controller passed the order of eviction against the tenant on April 7, 2010.
14,52,900/ paid by the respondent landlord to the tenant was being treated as arrears of rent.
Rent Controller to companysider this question.
On June 6, 2009, the tenant filed an affidavit before the Rent Controller setting out in detail the statement of the payment of rent made by him from April, 2007 amounting to Rs.
4795 dated 12.6.2008, Rs.
37,00,950/ to the landlord towards rent from April 2007 and numberrent was due and payable by him, in his affidavit dated June 6, 2009, the tenant gave the details of the payment of Rs.
27,84,875.04 along with Service Tax at the rate of 12.5 per cent.
It was averred that the tenant failed to make the payment of rent regularly and has fallen in arrears to the extent of Rs.
The claim of eviction, inter alia, was founded on the ground of default.
The tenant also agreed to pay the Service Tax at the rate of 12.5 per cent and also increase the rent at the rate of 5 per cent every year on the last prevailing rent.
The Appellate Authority, accordingly, allowed the appeal by its order dated June 10, 2010, set aside the orders dated April 7, 2010 and June 11, 2009 passed by the Rent Controller and remanded the matter to the Rent Controller with a direction to pass fresh order regarding the provisional assessment of the arrears of rent, interest and companyts of the proceedings.
Rent Controller is patently illegal and erroneous.
The tenant was number satisfied with the order dated June 11, 2009 since the Rent Controller failed to companysider the amount of Rs.
1,000/ on July 18, 2009.
15.4.2008 528400 15.4.2008 450000 amount given through Cheque 9.5.2008 182325.94p 13.5.2008 181900 9.6.2008 182325.94p 12.6.2008 202900 amount given through Cheque 12.6.2008 350000 amount given through Cheque 12.6.2008 450000 amount given through Cheque 9.7.2008 182325.94p 9.8.2008 150000 9.9.2008 150000 9.10.2008 150000 21.8.2008 40000 22.8.2008 60000 9.11.2008 150000 Total 49,35,386 28 24,99,000/ On the other hand, the tenant in his affidavit dated June 6, 2009 gave the details of the payments made to the landlord towards rent from the month of April, 2007 as under Cheque Dated for Rs.
He tried to wriggle out of the situation by submitting that the tenant had agreed to repay the said amount with the rent.
Vesting of appellate authority on officers by State Government.
The Rent Controller determined the provisional rent on June 11, 2009 assessing the arrears of rent provisionally at Rs.
This application was decided on April 7, 2010 and by the same order, the eviction order was passed against the tenant.
37,00,950/ which he claimed to have paid to the landlord towards rent for the period from April, 2007 and, therefore, he made an application on September 7, 2009 for recalling the order dated June 11, 2009.
He averred that the premises were incomplete at the time of lease and he invested huge amount for its companypletion by taking loan from the banks amounting to Rs.
While exercising discretion for affording the tenant an opportunity of making good the deficit, one of the relevant factors to be taken into companysideration by the Controller would be, whether the tenant has paid or tendered with substantial regularity the rent falling due month by month during the pendency of the proceedings.
The landlord submitted reply to each of these applications, denied their companyrectness and submitted that the applications were number maintainable and have been made to delay the eviction proceedings.
1,50,000/ per month with effect from August 11, 2008 for the period of 31 months.
The Ld.
The Appellate Authority heard the parties and held that the provisional assessment order dated June 11, 2009 was patently illegal.
If the final adjudication by the Controller be at variance with his interim or provisional order passed under the proviso, one of the following two orders may be made depending on the facts situation of a given case.
58,98,370/ by raising loan from a bank and the said amount was liable to be adjusted in the arrears of rent there was numbercontention raised about the payment of Rs.
The proviso to Section 13 2 i of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 casts an obligation on the Controller to make an assessment of i arrears of rent, ii the interest on such arrears, and iii the companyt of application and then quantify by way of an interim or provisional order the amount which the tenant must pay or tender on the first date of hearing after the passing of such order of assessment by the Controller so as to satisfy the requirement of the proviso.
If, on the other hand, the amount deposited by the tenant is found to be short or deficient, the Controller may pass a companyditional order directing the tenant to place the landlord in possession of the premises by giving a reasonable time to the tenant for paying or tendering the deficit amount, failing which alone he shall be liable to be evicted.
According to the landlord, he received the payment as under Date Debit Credit 9.4.2007 173643.75p 26.4.2007 163250 26.4.2007 10000 9.5.2007 173643.75p 9.6.2007 173643.75p 9.7.2007 173643.75p 18.7.2007 163250 18.7.2007 10000 9.8.2007 182325.94p 9.9.2007 182325.94p 27.9.2007 10000 28.9.2007 163250 9.10.2007 182325.94p 27.10.2007 10000 8.11.2007 171900 8.11.2007 10000 9.11.2007 182325.94 1.12.2007 163250 3.12.2007 10000 9.12.2007 182325.94 10.12.2007 10000 11.12.2007 171900 9.1.2008 182325.94p 9.2.2008 182325.94p 9.3.2008 182325.94p 9.3.2008 182325.94p 1.4.2008 Opening Balance 450000 security amt.
The Ld.
He raised companynter claim and claimed refund of the excess amount paid to the landlord.
Compliance shall save him from eviction.
From the perusal of the said order, it is made out that Ld.
The tenant made another application on February 9, 2010 before the Rent Controller for calling upon the landlord to provide list of his employees along with attendance register.
58,98,370/ .
By yet another application, the tenant annexed companyies of cheques which were duly encashed by the Manager of the landlord.
Rent Controller has number mentioned anything that as to how the amount of about Rs.
On the failure of the tenant to companyply, numberhing remains to be done and an order for eviction shall follow.
However, even on this the said amount companyld number be treated as arrears of rent.
Rent Controller did number companysider these aspects of the case at all.
The Rent Controller held that there was numberprovision of law under which the order dated June 11, 2009 companyld be recalled reviewed.
Ultimately, after the expiry of the first lease period, the tenant requested for reduction in rent and he agreed to pay the rent of the premises at the rate of Rs.
The Ld.
As per the terms of lease, rent would increase at the rate of 5 per cent every year on the last prevailing rent and it was also agreed that the tenant shall pay the rent for every month in advance by the 7th of month.
On September 7, 2009, the tenant made an application before the Rent Controller for recalling the order dated June 11, 2009, amongst other grounds, on the ground that his affidavit as well as the written statement that he has also paid Rs.
5,45,700/ which was received by the respondent landlord from the tenant even as per the statement of account pertaining to the bank account of the respondent was number adjusted.
37,00,950/ .
companynsel for the respondent companyld be claimed as arrears of rent sic.
The decision in Rakesh Wadhawan1 has been affirmed by a 3 Judge Bench decision of this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. Prem Lata2.
One thing needs to be numbericed immediately that besides the specific averment made by the tenant in the written statement that he has paid Rs.
M. Lodha, J. Leave granted.
The main question for determination in this appeal, by special leave, is If a tenant does number avail his remedy to challenge the order of the provisional rent fixed under Section 13 2 i proviso to the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for short, 1949 Rent Act by filing an appeal under Section 15 1 b within 15 days from date of such order, whether the order fixing provisional rent becomes final and cannot be challenged subsequently, particularly, in the appeal challenging the order of eviction.
The landlord averred that the premises were leased out to the tenant for a term of five years companymencing from August 11, 2003 at the rent of Rs.
37,00,950/ to the landlord.
The Rent Controller directed the tenant to make the payment of arrears of rent as determined with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum and companyts of Rs.
The facts are these.
The affidavit companytains the cheque numbers, the dates on which such cheques were issued and the amount of cheques.
