Manjit Singh vs Malkiat Singh and Others

Rajesh Bindal, J.—Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 24.7.2013, passed by the Rent Controller, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for extension of time for payment of rent in terms of the directions issued by the appellate authority on 2.4.2013, was dismissed. In the case in hand, eviction of the petitioner was ordered from the premises in dispute by the Rent Controller on 2.3.2013. The petitioner was directed to hand over vacant physical possession of the premises in dispute to the landlord within two months. The eviction was directed on the grounds of personal necessity of the landlords and also sub-letting. Aggrieved against the order of the Rent Controller, the petitioner preferred appeal, which was entertained and vide order dated 2.4.2013, the learned appellate authority stayed the operation of the impugned judgment subject to the condition that the petitioner shall deposit all the outstanding dues of rent within a period of one month. The amount was not paid by the petitioner. On 23.7.2013, an application was filed for extension of time before the Rent Controller, which was dismissed by the impugned order.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was on account of over-sight that arrears of rent, as directed by the appellate authority, could not be deposited within the time permitted. The petitioner is ready and willing to pay the same now with interest and any cost imposed by this court.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. The eviction petition was filed by the landlord on 31.1.2009, in which eviction of the petitioner was ordered on 2.3.2013 on the ground of personal necessity of the landlords and subletting. In appeal, the appellate authority, vide order dated 2.4.2013, stayed the operation of the impugned judgment of the Rent Controller, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall deposit all the outstanding arrears of rent within a period of one month. The amount was not paid. In the application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to deposit the arrears before the Rent Controller, it is mentioned that rent @ Rs. 882/- per month was due from 1.6.2011 till 31.7.2013 and for the period from 1.12.2009 to 31.5.2011, it was due @ Rs. 82/- per month, total being Rs. 24,735/- including interest. It is claimed that the aforesaid application was filed seeking permission to deposit the arrears as the landlords had filed execution of the order of the Rent Controller. It is not in dispute that there is no extension of time granted by the appellate authority in the order dated 2.4.2013 for deposit of arrears of rent. In the absence thereof, such an application before the Rent Controller was not even maintainable. Further, it is evident that the tenant enjoyed the fruits of the premises without paying any rent since December, 2009, as admittedly no rent was paid since then, i.e., even during the pendency of the eviction petition as well. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Rent Controller. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.