Arun Kumar vs Sham Lal and Others

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.—The tenant is in revision against the orders of both the Courts below directing him to vacate the demised premises. The application for eviction was filed on the ground of nonpayment of arrears of rent. The Rent Controller assessed the rent to the tune of Rs. 7,18,867/- on 04.04.2012 which was tendered by the tenant on 05.06.2012 and received by the landlord under protest stating that it is insufficient and invalid. The case was then adjourned to 22.08.2012 but no-one appeared on behalf of the tenant on that date and notice was is sued to him and his counsel. The tenant appeared on 26.03.2013 and his presence was marked. Thereafter, the tenant had been appearing in person and the Rent Controller, after hearing both the parties, concluded that the interest on the amount of delayed payment of rent for the period 01.02.1989 to 01.01.1990 was not assessed and remained unpaid and passed a conditional order of eviction by directing the tenant to pay the interest on the amount of Rs. 42,300/- @ 6% per annum, for a period of 22 years, which comes out to Rs. 55,836/-, within a period of two months, failing which the tenant was directed to hand over vacant possession of the demised premises to the petitioner within a period of two months.

The case of the petitioner is that he did not join the proceedings after 26.03.2013 and his presence has been wrongly marked in the subsequent interim orders. It is further argued that after the tender was made, further enquiry was required to be held but no enquiry was done by the learned Rent Controller and straightway order of eviction was passed, subject to payment of amount of Rs. 55,836/-.

The Courts below have concurrently held that in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Rajan @ Raj Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar, 2010 (1) R.C.R. (Rent) 386, if a tenant fails to comply with the order of provisional assessment of rent, he is liable to be evicted from the demised premises.

In this revision also, counsel for the petitioner has argued that after 26.03.2013, the presence of the petitioner has been marked in person but he did not appear on the subsequent dates and has alleged that those zimni orders have been recorded by the Rent Controller in a mechanical fashion without adverting to the fact that the petitioner was not present in the Court.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has denied this fact.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and examining the record, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner cannot dispute the orders of the Courts below especially the zimni orders recorded by the Rent Controller and if it is wrongly recorded, the remedy lies in filing of an application before the same Court in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and Another, . In view of the aforesaid discussion, the proper course of action on the part of the petitioner was to apprise the Rent Controller who had recorded the zimni orders about the error therein, otherwise the record of the Court is to be accepted as it is in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra''s case (supra).

Accordingly, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed.