Sarwan Kumar @ Shravan Kumar vs. Maninder Singh

Facts

These two revision petitions, CR-5887-2023 and CR-2426-2024, were filed by Sarwan Kumar @ Shravan Kumar (the petitioner-tenant) against Maninder Singh (the respondent-landlord). CR-5887-2023 challenged an order dated 03.07.2023 by the Rent Controller, which directed the petitioner to pay arrears of rent assessed at Rs. 27,000/- per month, totaling Rs. 23,38,875/-. An appeal against this order was dismissed on 31.08.2023 by the Appellate Authority, which noted the Rent Controller's assessment was interim and subject to final decision. CR-2426-2024 challenged an order dated 01.12.2023 by the Rent Controller, striking off the petitioner's defence. This followed an earlier order dated 05.10.2023 from the High Court in CR-5887-2023, which had stayed the Rent Controller's order of 03.07.2023 on the condition that the petitioner deposit 60% of the assessed amount within 8 weeks. The petitioner attempted to deposit 60% (Rs. 14,03,500/-) via a demand draft on 30.11.2023, but it was returned due to an error in the payee's name. The petitioner's subsequent inability to comply with the revised deadline of 01.12.2023, due to attending a family event, led to the striking off of his defence.

Held

The High Court decided to dispose of both revision petitions. For CR-5887-2023, the Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn, granting the petitioner liberty to raise all available points during the trial. This implicitly acknowledged the petitioner's submission that the Appellate Authority's observations protected his interests concerning the interim rent assessment. For CR-2426-2024, the Court partly allowed the petition and set aside the order dated 01.12.2023, which had struck off the petitioner's defence. This relief was granted subject to strict conditions. The petitioner was directed to deposit the full assessed amount of Rs. 23,38,875/- and Rs. 10,000/- as costs in favour of the respondent within eight weeks. The Court clarified that this payment would not constitute an admission by the petitioner and all pleas, including those regarding the rate of rent, would be decided at the final adjudication. The petitioner was also granted an opportunity to cross-examine the landlord's witnesses (PW1 and PW2), provided he did not unnecessarily delay the proceedings. Crucially, the Court stipulated that failure to comply with these conditions within the stipulated period would result in the petition being deemed dismissed. The petitioner was also permitted to retrieve the old, erroneous demand draft. The ratio is that while procedural lapses can lead to striking off defence, courts may grant relief upon substantial compliance and a commitment to expedite the final resolution, balancing the rights of both parties.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Rent Controller's order dated 03.07.2023, assessing interim rent and arrears, was legally sustainable, and if the petitioner's appeal against it was rightly dismissed. 2. Whether the Rent Controller's order dated 01.12.2023, striking off the petitioner's defence, was justified, considering the circumstances surrounding the attempted deposit of 60% of the assessed rent. Petitioner's arguments: In CR-5887-2023, the petitioner argued that since the Appellate Authority's order protected his rights regarding future adjustments of any excess rent paid, he should be allowed to withdraw the revision petition with liberty to raise all points during the trial. In CR-2426-2024, the petitioner contended that he was ready to deposit the entire amount of Rs. 23,38,875/- within 8 weeks and pay Rs. 10,000/- as costs. He prayed for the order striking off his defence to be set aside and for an opportunity to cross-examine the landlord's witnesses, including PW1 and PW2, whose evidence-in-chief had been recorded. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argued that the petitioner should be bound by his statement to pay the entire amount along with costs within the specified period, and if not paid, the petition should be deemed dismissed.