M/S Macro Enterprises And Anr. vs. Rohit Jain

Facts

The petitioners, M/s Macro Enterprises and another, are tenants who challenged eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. The respondent landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, for a showroom. The tenancy, governed by a rent deed dated 05.06.2013, was for 5 years, ending 31.05.2018. The landlord claimed the tenant had not paid the full rent of Rs. 95,130/- per month since April 2019, had failed to pay utility bills and property tax, and had made alterations. The Rent Controller assessed provisional rent on 06.03.2023. The tenant challenged this, but the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 03.08.2023. The tenant failed to deposit the provisional rent arrears as directed, leading to an eviction order on 29.08.2023. The Appellate Authority dismissed the tenant's appeal against the eviction order on 04.01.2024. This revision petition followed.

Held

The High Court held that the Rent Controller, in assessing provisional rent, is obligated to assess arrears of rent, interest, and costs. The tenant is then obligated to tender the assessed amount on the first date of hearing after the order. Failure to comply with this order results in an eviction order. The Court noted that the provisional rent was assessed on 06.03.2023, and despite an interim stay by the Appellate Authority, the tenant's appeal against the provisional rent assessment was dismissed on 03.08.2023. The tenant was given time until 29.08.2023 to comply, but failed to deposit the assessed rent. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Rakesh Wadhawan & others Vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation & others, the Court found that the Rent Controller had no alternative but to order eviction due to the tenant's failure to tender the provisional rent with interest and costs. The Appellate Authority's upholding of this eviction order was also deemed correct. The Court found no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority erred in assessing the provisional rent at Rs. 95,130/- per month, considering the registered rent deed expired on 31.05.2018 and the rent rate was disputed? 2. Whether the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority wrongly held that the petitioner failed to deposit the rent as assessed, despite the petitioner's contention that they were ready to pay Rs. 40,000/- after deducting TDS and GST? 3. Whether the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller and upheld by the Appellate Authority is liable to be set aside due to material irregularity and illegality, particularly in ignoring the disputed rent rate and the expiry of the rent deed? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that the provisional rent assessment was erroneous as it relied on an expired rent deed and ignored the disputed rent rate. They contended they were willing to pay Rs. 40,000/- after deductions. They also claimed that the Appellate Authority wrongly stated that the order of provisional rent assessment was not challenged before a superior court, citing a previously filed and withdrawn revision petition. They asserted that both courts acted illegally by ignoring the settled principle of law and evidence. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondent/landlord.