LexHARJIT SINGH UPPAL versus ANUP BANSAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 948 HARJIT SINGH UPPAL v. ANUP BANSAL (Civil Appeal No. 4416 of 2011) MAY 13, 2011 [AFTAB ALAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - ss. 15(1)(b) and 13(2)(i) provico - Eviction petition on the ground, c of default in payment of rent - Order by the Rent Controller determining the provisional rent uls. 13(2)(i) proviso - Tenant not availing his remedy to challenge the same by filing fn appeal u/s. 15(1)(b) within the time prescribed - Effect of - Held: It cannot be said that the order fixing provisional rent becomes final and cannot be challenged subsequently, D particularly, in the appeal challenging the order of eviction - s. 15(1)(b) does not make it imperative upon the person aggrieved to appeal from an interlocutory order and, if he does not do so, his right gets forfeited when he challenges the final order - An order of eviction follows if there is non- E compliance of the order determining the provisional rent - However, when the tenant challenges the order of eviction in appeal and therein also challenges the order determining the provisional rent, it is not open to the Appellate Authority to refuse to consider the legality and validity of the order F determining the provisional rent on the ground that no appeal was filed from that order though an appeal lay therefrom - Thus, .tlj:e app&llate authority did not commit any e"or in calling upon the Rent Controller to determine the arrears of rent, interest and costs afresh as the tenant's statement of G payments towards rent was not refe"ed to and considered by tha..Rf?nf Controller - Order passed by the High Court is set aside- and that of the appellate court is restored. The respondent-landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, H 948 HARJIT SINGH UPPAL v. ANUP BANSAL 949 1949 to evict the appellant-tenant on the ground of A default in paying rent since April, 2007, before the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller by order dated 11.06.2009 determined the provisional rent and directed the tenant to make the payment of arrears of rent within a week. On 07.09.2009, the tenant filed an application before the Rent 8 Controller for recalling the order dated 11.06.2009 since the particulars of payment of rent furnished by the tenant were not considered. The tenant filed more applications. On 07 .04.2010, the Rent Controller rejected all the applications and passed an order of eviction against the tenant holding that there was no provision of law under C which the order dated 11.06.2009 could be recalled/ reviewed. The tenant filed an appeal under Section 15(1 )(b) of the 1949 Act before the appellate authority and challenged the orders dated 07.04.2010 and 11.06.2009 passed by the Rent Controller. The appellate authority D holding that the provisional assessment order dated 11.06.2009 was patently illegal, 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 costs of the proceedings. The E respondent-landlord filed a revision petition challenging the order passed by the Appellate Authority. The Single Judge of the High Court allowed the revision petition holding that since the tenant did not avail his remedy to challenge the order fixing provisional rent, during the period between the date of the order and date fixed for F payment, the Rent Controller had no choice but to pass an order of eviction. The order of the appellate authority was set aside and that of the Rent Controller was restored. Therefore, the appellants filed the instant . appeal. G Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The order passed by the Rent Controller determining the provisional rent in an eviction petition based on the ground of default in a situation where the H 950 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A tenant fails to comply with that order may be a foundational order for an order of eviction that follows but nevertheless such order is an interlocutory order as that order does not determine the principal matter finally; it is only the order on subordinate matter with which it deals. B [Para 30] [964-F-G] 1.2. Section 15(1)(b) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 provides that a person aggrieved by an order passed by the Rent Controller may prefer appeal to the Appellate Aut
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.