Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2022) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 16616 = 2022(1) L.A.R. 257
Decided on: 08.03.2022
Present:
Mr. C.S. Jattana, Advocate for the petitioners.
(Through Video Conferencing)
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Eviction of tenant -- Arrears of rent – Provisional assessment of rent – Non deposit of – Covid-19 situation – Effect of – On 15.10.2020, courts resumed limited functioning -- Notice was issued to the petitioners-tenants for 11.11.2020 for making payment of provisional rent in accordance with order dated 05.03.2020 -- On the said date no rent was tendered -- Despite being given repeated adjournments, the petitioners-tenants failed to tender the provisional rent – Eviction order upheld. Rakesh Wadhawan’s case 2002(2) PLR 370 relied.
(Para 1-6)
Cases referred:
1. Rakesh Wadhawan and others Vs. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and others, 2002(2) Punjab Law Reporter 370.
***
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) –
1. Vide order dated 11.12.2020 the Rent Controller, Bathinda, allowed the petition filed by respondent No.1-landlord under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, for delivering the vacant possession of the demised premises (one shop measuring 17' x 14'-1 ½” bearing No.A-11, forming part of Mahabir Dal Market, bounded as East: 14'-1 ½” M.S.D. School, West: G.T. Road, leading from Bathinda to Goniana, North:17 Shop No.A-10 belonging to respondent No.1-landlord and South: 16'-10” Shop No.A-12 belonging to respondent No.1-landlord, located near Hanuman Chowk, G.T. Road, Bathinda) on account of the failure of petitioners-tenants to tender the provisional rent on the appointed date. The order of eviction was thereafter challenged before the appellate authority by urging that the impugned order had been passed merely on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent without going into the merits of the case.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners-tenants submits that the Courts below failed to appreciate that the petitioners-tenants were ready and willing to tender the provisional rent, however, they were unable to do so on account of outbreak of covid-19 pandemic coupled with the factum of non-availability of the Presiding Officer on 11.11.2020.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners-tenants and perused the impugned orders.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to satisfy this Court as to how the conclusions arrived at, by both the authorities were either erroneous or suffering from any material irregularity. As per the petitioners-tenants, they were unable to deposit the provisional rent as assessed by the Rent Controller, vide order dated 05.03.2020 on account of outbreak of pandemic covid-19. No doubt due to the outbreak of pandemic, the Courts were not functioning regularly, however, on 15.10.2020, the Courts resumed limited functioning. Thereafter, notice was issued to the petitioners-tenants for 11.11.2020 for making payment of provisional rent in accordance with order dated 05.03.2020. On the said date i.e. 11.11.2020, the petitioners-tenants were duly represented by a counsel, however, no rent was tendered. Rather an adjournment was sought by the petitioners-tenants for filing reply to the application for their eviction. Despite being given repeated adjournments on 11.11.2012 and 01.12.2020, the petitioners-tenants failed to tender the provisional rent.
5. In the circumstances and in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan and others Vs. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and others : 2002(2) Punjab Law Reporter 370, no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned orders being assailed, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
6. The revision, being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
********