Skip to content


Jaswant Singh Vs. Chuni Lal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 1291 of 1979
Judge
Reported inAIR1980P& H137
ActsHaryana Urban Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1973 - Sections 4, 4(1), 13 and 13(2)
AppellantJaswant Singh
RespondentChuni Lal and ors.
Cases ReferredRulia Ram v. S. Fateh Singh
Excerpt:
.....not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed by the state or regional transport authority should result in commencement of the period..........chuni lal paid rs. 7/- per month as rent. on november 7, 1973. the petitioner applied to the rent controller for fixation of fair rent of the shop and the latter vide order dated june 24, 1977, fixed it at rs. 75/- per month from the date of the application, in addition to any other tax etc. chuni lal filed an appeal against the order of the rent controller and the appellate authority vide order dated october 17, 1977, dismissed the same. civil revision no, 788 of 1979 filed by chuni lal also met the same fate,2. on june 30, 1977, jaswant singh petitioner filed a petition !or ejectment of chuni lal respondent from the shop in dispute on various grounds including the one for non-payment of arrears of rent. chuni lal tendered arrears of rent for three years i. e. from june 6, 1974 to.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. Chuni Lal respondent is the tenant of the shop in dispute at Panipat of which Jaswant Singh petitioner is the landlord, Chuni Lal paid Rs. 7/- per month as rent. On November 7, 1973. the petitioner applied to the Rent Controller for fixation of fair rent of the shop and the latter vide order dated June 24, 1977, fixed it at Rs. 75/- per month from the date of the application, in addition to any other tax etc. Chuni Lal filed an appeal against the order of the Rent Controller and the appellate authority vide order dated October 17, 1977, dismissed the same. Civil Revision No, 788 of 1979 filed by Chuni Lal also met the same fate,

2. On June 30, 1977, Jaswant Singh petitioner filed a petition !or ejectment of Chuni Lal respondent from the shop in dispute on various grounds including the one for non-payment of arrears of rent. Chuni Lal tendered arrears of rent for three years i. e. from June 6, 1974 to June 5, 1977. An objection was raised by the petitioner that the tender was invalid inasmuch as it should have been made with effect from Nov. 7, 1973, on which date he had applied to the Rent Controller for fixation of fair rent end with effect from which date the fair rent had been fixed. The learned Rent Controller vide order dated April 2, 1879, overruled the objection end held that the tender made by Chuni Lal respondent was valid It is against this order that the Present revision is directed.

3. Section 13 of the Haryana Urban Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter the Act) contains the grounds on which a tenant can be evioted at the instance of the landlord. section 13(2)(i) reads:--

'(i) that the tenant has not paid of tendered the rent due from the in respect of the building or rented land within fifteen days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy with his landlord or in the absence of any such agreement by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable;

Provided that if the tenant, within s period of fifteen days of the first hearing of the application for ejectment after due service, pays or tenders the arrears of rent and interest, to be calculated by the Controller, at eight per centum per annum on such arrears together with such costs of the application, if any, as may be allowed by the Controller, the tenant shall be deemed to have duly Paid or tendered the rent within the time aforesaid: Provided further that the landlord shall not be entitled to Claim arrears of rent for a period exceeding three years immediately Preceding the date of application under the provisions of this Act'

4. Section 4 of the Act deals with the determination of fair rent. Section 4(1) reads:--

'The Controller shall, on application by the tenant or the landlord of a building or rented land, fix the fair rent for such building or rented land after holding such enquiry as he may think fit, such fair rent shall be operative from the date of application.'

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under Section 4(1) the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller becomes operative from the date of the application. In the instant case, Jaswant Singh petitioner applied to the Rent Controller for fixation of rent on November 7, 1973. The lair rent fixed by the Rent Controller vide order dated June 24, 1977, became operative with effect from November, 7, 1973. Even otherwise, the Rent Controller while fixing the fair rent expressly made it effective from the date of the application. In this situation, it was obligatory for Chuni Lal respondent to tender arrears of rent at the rate of lair rent fixed, with effect from November 7, 1973, irrespective of the fact that under second proviso if Section 13(2)(i) the petitioner was entitled to claim arrears for a period of three years only immediately preceding the date of the application for ejectment. The learned counsel has further argued that this situation would arise only where the fair rent fixed is in excess of the contractual rent as has happened in the instant case. Reliance has been placed on Rulia Ram v. S. Fateh Singh, (1962) 64 Pun LR 255 and Tek Chand v. firm Amar Nath Basheshar Das, 1972 Ren CJ 301 (Punj). in my opinion, there is no force in this contention.

6. Under Section 13(2)(i) the tenant has been made liable to be ejected on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent and under second proviso thereto the term 'arrears of rent' has been restricted to a period of three years immediately preceding the date of application for ejectment. It is true that under Section 4(1) of the Act the fair rent fixed becomes operative from the date of the application and in certain cases the period covered thereunder may be more than three years. The fact that the fair rent fixed exceeds the contractual rent end becomes operative for a period more than three years would not enlarge the scope of 'arrears of rent' given in second proviso to Section 13(2)(i) in the context of that section. In other words, a tenant would not be liable to be ejected on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent if he tenders rent for a period of three years immediately preceding the date of application for ejectment irrespective of the fact that the fair rent fixed exceeds the contractual rent and is operative for a period more then three years. It is admitted that the respondent tenant did tender arrears of rent on the first date of hearing for a period of three years immediately preceding the date of the application. The Rent Controller, therefore, rightly concluded that the respondent was not liable to be ejected on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent.

7. The ratio of Rulia Ram's case (supra) and Tek Chand's case (supra) is hardly relevant for the issue under consideration.

8. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed

9. Revision dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //