JUDGMENT

JASWANT SINGH, J. –

1. Petitioners (landlords) have filed the present revision under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the findings returned by learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh vide its order dated 13.08.2012, whereby it was held that since the respondent(tenant) has already tendered the rent to the tune of Rs.1,22,16,931/- as assessed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh within the time allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, thus he cannot be evicted from the premises. Consequently, the learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh dismissed the ejectment application of the petitioners (landlords).

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that petitioners (landlords) had filed petition seeking eviction of the respondent Alamjit Singh Mann (tenant) from the basement and ground floor area of SCO No.483-484 (approx.3700 sq.ft.), Sector 35-C, Chandigarh on the ground of non payment of arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.11.2003 on the basis of registered lease deed dated 28.06.2002.

3. The respondent (tenant), on the other hand, had stated that since there was a compromise in a earlier litigation, whereby the rate of rent was settled to be Rs.1,25,000/- per month, therefore, no arrears of rent is due towards him. The respondent(tenant) also filed a counter claim that fair rent be also assessed because as per new Chandigarh Administration Rules, he is not able to use the building properly and, therefore, the rent cannot be more than Rs.50,000/- per month.

4. Replication-cum-reply to the counter claim was filed by the petitioners(landlords) denying all the averments of the written statement-cum-counter claim filed by the respondent(tenant) and it was reasserted that the respondent(tenant) is in arrears of rent.

5. From the pleadings of the parties issues were framed. Both sides lead their respective evidence in support of their claims and after appreciating their evidence, learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh accepted all the pleas taken by the petitioners (landlords) vide its order dated 28.09.2011 and it was held that the tenant is in arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.1,22,16,931/- and he is liable to pay the same within a period of 2 months failing which he is liable to be ejected from the demised premises.

6. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred by the respondent(tenant) Alamjit Singh Mann. The said appeal was allowed by the learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh vide its order dated 13.08.2012 whereby the petition of the petitioners(landlords) was dismissed on the ground that in compliance of the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, the respondent(tenant) has already paid the entire amount. However, the findings of the learned Rent Controller to the effect that respondent(tenant) was in arrears of rent was upheld. Consequently, the present petition has been filed by the petitioners (landlords) against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh whereby it has been challenged on the ground that the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh is bad in the eyes of law.

7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully with their able assistance.

8. Before referring to the arguments of both the parties, it would be appropriate to mention here that the sole question that arises for determination in the present petition is that whether the learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh was justified in dismissing the ejectment application filed by the petitioners(landlords) on the ground that respondent(tenant) had paid the amount of arrears of rent as assessed by the learned Rent Controller within a time frame prescribed by it or not.

9. On the said question, learned counsel for the petitioners (landlords) has argued that the learned Appellate Authority has committed grave error by dismissing the petition of the petitioners(landlords) on the ground that the amount that has been paid by the respondent(tenant) is within time given by learned Rent Controller. It has been argued that the said order is in complete contravention of the settled principles of law and further the learned Appellate Authority has wrongly interpreted the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court and has introduced the theory of doctrine of merger to the present case in hand, although the same is absolutely not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.

10. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the caveator/respondent (tenant) has vehemently argued that the learned Appellate Authority has rightly passed the impugned order whereby it has been held that the payment that was made by the respondent(tenant) was within the time that was prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and thus no fault can be found in the findings of the learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh.

11. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, this court is of the considered view that the present revision is devoid of any merit and the same deserves to be dismissed. It is not in dispute that the learned Rent Controller had vide its order dated 28.09.2011 allowed the petition of the petitioners(landlords) on the ground of non payment of arrears of rent and it was observed in the said order that amount of Rs.1,22,16,931/- has to be paid within a period of two months, else the respondent(tenant) will be liable to be evicted. It is further not in dispute that only the respondent (tenant) had filed an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh and during the pendency of the said appeal, an application was also moved by the respondent(tenant) for staying the operation of the impugned order of the learned Rent controller, Chandigarh. In the said appeal, the learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh had passed a conditional order to the effect that the impugned order shall remain stayed subject to the condition that the respondent(tenant) shall deposit 30% of the arrears of rent as assessed by the learned Rent Controller within one month from today. The said order was passed on 03.11.2011.

12. Against the order dated 03.11.2011 a Civil Revision petition no.7953 of 2011 was filed by the petitioner(landlord) and in the said petition, on 14.02.2012 this Court had passed the following order:-

“Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the tenant is directed to deposit the amount determined by the Rent Controller minus the amount already deposited. The needful shall be done within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.”

13. It is an admitted case between both the parties, that the copy of the order passed by this Court on 14.02.2012 was delivered on 27.02.2012 and on 20.03.2012, Special Leave to Appeal no.9375 of 2012, filed by the respondent (tenant) before Hon'ble Supreme Court was also dismissed as withdrawn. However, in the said order it was specifically observed that the petition is dismissed as withdrawn and three months time is granted to the respondent(tenant) to deposit the arrears of rent in terms of the order passed by this Court on 14.02.2012.

14. Petitioners (landlords) has not been able to dispute the fact that the amount that was to be deposited by the respondent(tenant) was tendered before the Rent Controller within the time frame ordered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

15. In view of the above, this Court is unable to agree with the arguments raised by learned Counsel for the petitioners(landlords) that the learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh has misread the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and has wrongly applied the doctrine of merger to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. It is crystal clear from the orders as referred above, that Hon'ble Supreme Court had specifically granted three months time in terms of the order passed by this Court and within the said time frame, the amount was deposited by the tenant. Thus, the time that was given by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh stood extended by the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court.

16. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

********