LexDHIANKAUR versus EAST PUNJAB URBAN RENT RESTRICTION ACT, 1949
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2014] 13 S.C.R. 998 DHIANKAUR v. PREM PAL SRAN (Civil Appeal No. 9978 of2014) OCTOBER 29, 2014 [FAl<KIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLAAND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] EAST PUNJAB URBAN RENT RESTRICTION ACT, 1949: s. 13(2)(i), proviso- Opportunity granted by High Court to tenant to clear arrears found due in final adjudication by authoriti!?s below - High Court was justified in reaching the conclusion that after the finding of Appellate Authority as regards defaultable arrears that was found due and payable D by respondent, the invocation of the proviso to s. 13(2)(i) was necessitated - The rights of landlady-appellant have been duly protected inasmuch as in the event of failure of respondent-tenant in duly discharging his stand as regards payment of defaultable arrears, consequence in not E complying with the requirement of proviso to s. 13(2)(i) would follow and it would be open to appellant to exercise the liberty granted in her favour in the impugned judgment by approaching the High Court and seeking for appropriate F orders. Rakesh Wadhawan & Ors. v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation & Ors. 2002 (3) SCR 468 : (2002) 5 sec 440 - cited. Case Law Reference: G 2002 (3) SCR 468 cited Para 3 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9978 of 2014. Frorn the judgment and order·dated 17.09.2012 in CR No. 4510 of 2000 passed by the High Court of Punjab & H Haryana at Chandigarh. 998 DHIAN KAUR v. PREM PAL SHAN 999 P. S. Khurana, Vibhuti Sushant Gupta and Dr. Kailash A Chand , Advs. for the Appellant. · Tarunvir Singh Khehar andAshok K. Mahajan, Advs. for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was passed: ORDER 1. Leave granted. B 2. Appellant, landlady, is aggrieved by the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision No. 4510 of 2000 dated 171h September, 2012. The c said revision arose at the inst_ance of the respondent-tenant against the order of eviction passed by the Appellate Authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, by which the respondent herein was granted two months' time to vacate the premises and hand over possession to the appellant o herein. 3. By the impugned order, the High Court after making reference to the decision of this Court in Rakesh Wadhawan and Others v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and Others (2002) 5 SCC 440 Bench insisted to apply the consequence E . of proviso to Section 13(2)(i) of the Act and extend an opportunity for clearing the arrears found due in the final adjudication of the rent proceedings by the lower authorities. While applying the ratio laid down by this Court in the above referred to decision, the learned Judge passed the following F order: "The tenant shall be liable to pay all the rent payable from December, 1994 till date and the tenant shall give memo of statement giving the particulars of the amount due and the amounts actually paid or deposited which G is a legal tender. The said calculation shall be rendered within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order and delivered to the landlord within the time stipulated above. The petition for eviction is dismissed H 1000 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 13 S.C.R. A on the statement made that the entire amount has been deposited. If there is any default of arrears in the manner canvassed by the landlord, the landlord shall be at liberty to approach this Court for appropriate modification of this order. The order of eviction passed B by the court below is set aside and the civil rf!vision is allowed." 4. To briefly reiterate the background of the proceedings, the appellant initiated the rent proceedings for ejectment on the ground of arrears of rent right from December, 1994. while C dealing with the proceedings a question arose whether the rent was at the rate of Rs.3,500/- (RL!pees Three thousand five hundrnd) per month as claimed by the appellant or Rs. 1,500/-(Rupees One thousand five hundred) per month as claimed by the respondent herein. Based on the evidence led D before the Rent Controller, a categoric finding came to be made by the Rent Controller that the rent aggreed between the parties was only Rs.1,500/-(Rupees One thousand five hundred) per month. Ultimately, learned Rent Controller held that the appellant failed to prove her case and consequently E dismissed the petition. 5. Before the Appellate Authority, the issue relating to the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.