Prem Lata and Another vs Ramesh Kumer Deora

Rajesh Bindal, J.—The tenants are before this court with a grievance that while deciding the appeal filed by them against the order passed by the Rent Controller while upholding the rate of rent, time has not been granted to deposit the same by the learned Appellate Authority, Faridkot. It is a case in which the respondent filed an eviction petition against the petitioners on various grounds. He claimed the rate of rent of the shop in question to be Rs. 2,000/- per month, whereas the petitioners claimed the same to be Rs. 650/- per month. At the time of assessment of provisional rent, the Rent Controller directed for payment of Rs. 650/- per month as the rent. However, finally vide order dated 27.11.2010, the rent was determined @ Rs. 2,000/- per month. The petitioners were granted two months'' time to clear the arrears. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority, who dismissed the same vide order dated 17.10.2013.

The grievance of the petitioners is that while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners, the Appellate Authority should have granted time to make the deficiency good, as vide interim order, the petitioners were directed to deposit the rent @ Rs. 1,500/- per month.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in terms of the judgment of Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan and Others Vs. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and Others, , once the court had declined to accept the submission made by the tenant regarding rate of rent, though he had complied with the interim order regarding payment thereof, time was required to be given for tendering the balance amount of rent. In the present case, the Rent Controller, vide order dated 27.11.2010, held the rate of rent to be Rs. 2,000/- per month. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners filed appeal. The Appellate Authority, vide order dated 23.2.2011, directed the petitioners to tender the rent @ Rs. 1,500/- per month. The same was paid regularly. The appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed on 17.10.2013, however, at that time the Appellate Authority failed to grant time to the petitioners to tender the deficit amount of rent. In terms of the judgment of Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan''s case (supra), time was required to be granted, as the petitioners are ready and willing to tender the balance amount of rent.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that intention of the petitioners from the very beginning is not to pay the rent and enjoy the possession of the property. They raised a false plea that the rate of rent was Rs. 650/- per month as against Rs. 2,000/- per month. Both the courts below have found that the case set up by the tenants was baseless and the rate of rent was finally found to be Rs. 2,000/- per month. He further submitted that the Rent Controller, while accepting the plea raised by the respondent that the rate of rent was Rs. 2,000/- per month and the tenant had tendered the same merely @ Rs. 650/- per month in terms of the provisional assessment made, granted two months'' time to deposit the same, otherwise eviction of the petitioners was to follow. As the petitioners in the present case failed to tender the balance amount within a period of two months, the order of eviction became effective and enforceable. Any payment made thereafter is of no consequence. He further submitted that even filing of appeal by the petitioners and interim order passed by the court on 23.2.2011 regarding payment of Rs. 1,500/- per month as the rent during the pendency of the appeal is also of no consequence considering the fact that the petitioners could be saved from eviction only either by tendering the rent within two months from the date of order of eviction or by filing an appeal and any interim order in their favor within that period. The petitioners having defaulted cannot take the benefit of the judgment of Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan''s case (supra). Mere filing of appeal within two months will not operate as stay or can be deemed to be extension of time for payment of the rent finally assessed by the Rent Controller. Learned counsel further submitted that the time fixed by the Rent Controller for payment of rent finally assessed is to be treated as first date of hearing for tendering the rent. On failure, the consequences follow.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. The undisputed facts on record are that in the eviction petition filed by the landlord, the rent was claimed @ Rs. 2,000/- per month. The tenants claimed the same to be Rs. 650/- per month. The Rent Controller assessed the provisional rent @ Rs. 650/- per month, which was tendered. Finally, vide order dated 27.11.2010, the Rent Controller assessed the rent @ Rs. 2,000/- per month. Period of two months was granted for tendering the balance amount. On failure, eviction was to follow. It is not in dispute that neither the petitioners tendered the balance amount of rent within the aforesaid period granted by the Rent Controller nor had any interim order passed by the Appellate Authority during that period. Though the appeal was filed by the petitioners within a period of two months, however, the interim order was passed by the Appellate Authority only on 23.2.2011, which was beyond the period of two months granted by the Rent Controller for tendering the balance amount of rent. Mere filing of appeal will not amount to either stay of the order passed by the Rent Controller or automatic extension of time. On failure to deposit the rent finally assessed by the Rent Controller within the permitted time, a right had accrued in favor of the landlord, namely, eviction of the petitioners from the premises in dispute. After dismissal of appeal filed by the petitioners by the Appellate Authority no further time was required to be granted for tendering the rent as the period had expired before the interim order was passed. Extension is possible only during the currency of the period and not after the expiry thereof. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.