DALIP KAUR BRAR versus M/S.GURU GRANTH SAHIB SEWA MISSION (REGD.) AND ANR.

Citation: [2017] 5 S.C.R. 444 · Decided: 11-04-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. KHEHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
[2017] 5 S.C.R. 444 
DALIP KAUR BRAR 
v. 
MIS.GURU GRANTH SAHIB SEWA MISSION 
(REGO.) AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5129of2017) 
APRIL 11, 2017 
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI AND 
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.] 
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 : 
s.13 - Interpretation of - Held: The interpretation of 
provisions of s.13 must bring about a just balance between the rights 
of the tenant and those of the landlord - Where the tenant has 
admitted that the rent is due and payable at least for a certain period, 
the Court should adopt an interpretation which does not permit the 
tenant to defeat the just claim of landlord - In the instant case, the 
High Court in revision while determining whether the provisional 
determination of the Rent Controller was correct or otherwise ignored 
that the tenants did not deposit the rent even for the duration which 
was admittedly due and payable - Further. while the rent payable 
was Rs.25,0001- for the first year and thereafter Rs.28.0001-, the 
Rent Controller had directed the tenants to deposit only Rs.19,0001-, 
howeve1; nothing was deposited by the tenants within the period 
fixed by the Rent Controller - Every excuse was made by the tenants 
for not paying the rent which was due and payable - High Court 
wrongly allowed the revision by tenants - Order of eviction passed 
by the Rent Controller as confirmed by the appellate authority, 
restored - Respondents to pay costs of R_s. 50,0001- to the appellant 
- Rent Control and Eviction. 
s. l 3(2)(i): 
G 
Proviso - Deeming fiction - Benefit of - When available -
Held: When on an assessment being made by Rent Controlle1; the 
tenant on the first hearing of eviction application pays or tenders 
inter alia the arrears of rent, as assessed by the Controller. the tenant 
is deemed to have duly paid or tendered the rent within the statutory 
period prescribed in the substantive part of clause (i) of 
H sub-section (2). 
444 
DALIP KAUR BRAR v. MIS.GURU GRANTH SAHIB SEWA 
445 
MISSION (REGD.) AND ANR. 
Proviso - "'Provisional assessment" order by Rent Controller 
A 
- Object and interpretation of - Held: The provisional assessment 
made by the rent controller ensures that while the tenant is protected 
against an unjust demand by the landlord, the landlord in turn is 
not deprived of the just dues owing on account of use and occupation 
of the property by the tenant - The provisional assessment is based B 
on a prima facie view formed by the Controller on the basis of 
pleadings or such other material, as available - To understand the 
words "assessed by the Rent Controller" as "correctly assessed;', 
would not be proper - Arrears payable by a tenant, would be 
correctly assessed only after evidence is recorded and concluded. 
s. l 5(l)(b) - Right of statutory (lfllJeal as against provisional C 
assessment - Held: The determination of a provisional assessment 
by Rent Controller is the foundation of eviction order, which flows 
from non-compliance of the provisional assessment order - Thus, 
· the tenant in an appeal against eviction order is entitled to question 
the correctness a/provisional assessment order and the said right D 
is not lost even after an eviction order is passed. 
A lease agreement for three years was executed between the 
appellant-landlord and respondents-tenants providing for a rent of 
Rs.25,000/- for the first year which was to be enhanced to Rs. 28,000/-
forthe remaining two years. Eviction application was filed by the landlord 
before the Rent Controller under Section 13, East Punjab Urban Rent 
Restriction Act, 1949, pleading that the tenants were in arrears of rent 
from 1.11.2005. The Rent Controller erroneously made a provisional 
assessment directing the tenant to deposit the rent from 1.06.2005 and 
not from 1.11.2005, as claimed by the landlord and atthe rateufRs.19,000/ 
E 
F 
- and not Rs.25,000/- as per the lease agreement. The tenant failed to 
comply with the provisional assessment order, whereupon eviction order 
was passed by the Rent Controller. Appeal filed by the tenants was 
dismissed by the appellate authority. The High Court by the impugned 
order. allowed the revision holding that since the order of provisional 
assessment was flawed, hence, the consequential eviction order ought 
G 
to be set aside. Hence, the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the East Punjab 
Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949, contains a bar to th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.