Lakhwinder Singh alias Kamal vs Vivek Rani and Another

Hemant Gupta, J.—Respondent No. 1 sought ejectment of one Deshmukh Goyal and the petitioner on the ground of non payment of arrears of rent. The petitioner was impleaded as sub-tenant. A statement is purported to be made by Deshmukh Goyal and the petitioner before the learned Rent Controller on 20.05.2005 wherein undertaking was given that the premises would be vacated on or before 20.06.2006. The said statement is appended with the present petition as Annexure P-1. Admittedly, on the basis of said statement, no order of evidence was passed on being satisfied with any of the grounds of evidence available u/s 13(2) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act").

An application was filed on 15.06.2005 withdrawing the statement made earlier. The learned Counsel for the landlord has made a statement that he has no objection in case the case is decided on merits. The said application was still pending when another application was filed on 4.1.2006 by the present petitioner for withdrawal of the application dated 15.06.2005 and to assert that petition for eviction be decided on merits. On the said date, statement of Deshmukh Goyal was recorded but the case was adjourned for reply of the landlady for 27.01.2006. On the said application, the impugned order was passed by the learned Rent Controller on 27.04.2006 whereby the application was dismissed and order of eviction was passed against the present petitioner granting her two months time to vacate the premises. The appeal against the said order was dismissed on 1.12.2006.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller is without any enquiry as contemplated in Section 13(2) of the Act. Therefore, the order of eviction passed by the learned authorities is wholly unjustified. It is also pointed out that no order of eviction can be passed on the basis of statement recorded on 20.04.2005 as the petitioner or Deshmukh Goyal have not admitted any of the grounds of eviction under the Act. It was also argued that before the order of eviction is passed, the petitioner has withdrawn her consent and, therefore, on the basis of alleged consent recorded on 20.04.2005, no order of eviction can be passed against the petitioner.

Learned Counsel for the respondent has controverted the argument raised by the petitioner and contended that once the petitioner has made a statement to vacate the premises she is liable to vacate the same. The order of eviction has been passed on the basis of statement made by the petitioner and therefore, she cannot be permitted to wriggle out of her statement.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and am of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned Rent Controller suffers from patent illegality and material irregularity. The order of eviction u/s 13 of the Act can be passed on the basis of consent only if one or the other ground of eviction in terms of Section 13 of the Act is satisfied. The statement made before the learned Rent Controller is only in respect of settlement of rent upto 20.06.2005 and that premises will be vacated on or before 20.06.2005. There is no admission of the tenant including the sub-tenant that they are in arrears of rent and that an order of eviction be passed. In the absence of any ground of eviction u/s 13 of the Act being satisfied, the petitioner cannot be evicted. The order of eviction under the Act can be passed only if a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the ground of eviction, as required u/s 13(2) of the Act, is given to the tenant. By the methodology adopted by the learned Rent Controller, the tenant has not been given an opportunity, to show cause against the grounds of eviction on the basis of which the landlady sought the eviction. Still further, before an order of eviction could be passed, the tenant moved an application to seek decision of eviction petition on merits. Through this application, the petitioner has sought to withdraw the consent allegedly give on 20.04.2005. Therefore, no order of eviction could be passed on the basis of consent which stood withdrawn before the order of ejectment was passed.

Consequently, the order of ejectment passed against the petitioner cannot be permitted to stand and the same is accordingly set aside.

It is admitted by the parties that the possession of premises from the petitioner was taken over on 13.12.2006.

Learned Counsel for the respondent states that the premises has been let out to another tenant. Be as it may, such tenant has been inducted during the pendency of present revision petition and, thus, will not confer the tenancy rights which will affect the rights of the present petitioner who has been evicted in wholly illegal and arbitrary manner. Therefore, the respondent-landlady is directed to restore the possession of the premises within one month from today. If the possession of the premises is not restored, the learned Rent Controller is directed to take steps for delivery of the possession to the petitioner. If the possession is restored, the learned trial Court shall decide the petition expeditiously and in accordance with law after assessing provisional arrears of rent and costs, if any payable by the petitioner.

The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.