M/S Jj Textiles vs. Shobha Wig

Facts

M/s J J Textiles (petitioner) challenged an order by the Appellate Authority, Faridabad, which upheld a Rent Controller's judgment ordering ejectment. The landlord (respondent) filed a petition for ejectment under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, due to non-payment of rent. The parties had a landlord-tenant relationship, with an industrial plot leased to the petitioner for 60 months at Rs. 2,16,000/- per month, exclusive of GST. The monthly rent for a specific period was Rs. 2,38,680/- inclusive of 18% GST and 7% TDS. The petitioner failed to make proper rent payments, leading to a provisional rent assessment of Rs. 24,96,176/-. The petitioner's attempt to amend their written statement and recall the provisional order was dismissed. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, which was upheld by the Appellate Authority.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner-tenant's application for amendment of the written statement and recalling of the provisional rent order was rightly declined. The Court found that the petitioner had made clear admissions regarding arrears of rent in their written statement, and a party cannot withdraw admissions simply to defeat the other party's rights, especially without documentary evidence proving the admission was wrongly made. The Court reiterated the principle that a tenant has a duty to pay the provisionally assessed rent, and any excess payment can be refunded later. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Rakesh Wadhawan and others Versus Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and others, which established that failure to pay provisionally assessed rent can lead to eviction. The Rent Controller and Appellate Authority's orders were deemed well-reasoned and based on this precedent. The Court found no illegality in their orders. However, acknowledging the petitioner's ongoing litigation and the presence of machinery, the Court granted the petitioner 10 months to vacate the premises.

Key Issues

1. Whether the provisional rent assessed by the learned Rent Controller, under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, was assessed as per law and whether the petitioner's application for amendment of the written statement and recalling of the order was rightly dismissed? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the provisional rent assessment was illegal. They argued that the landlord's grounds for eviction were not proved and that the landlord merely wanted the premises vacated due to a rent enhancement disagreement. The petitioner also claimed significant expenses for improvements were not adjusted and that a prior rent agreement was concealed. They further argued that the premises were closed due to COVID-19 and pollution control board directives, and that rent up to April 2022 was paid. The petitioner relied on their ledger accounts and balance sheets, which they claimed were not considered. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondent (landlord). However, the reasoning of the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority, as discussed in the judgment, implies that the tenant's failure to pay provisionally assessed rent, despite a clear admission of arrears, led to the eviction order.