Pramender Singh Sehrawat vs. Kamal Kanta Verma And Anr

Facts

The petitioner-tenant challenged eviction orders dated 21.04.2022 and 08.09.2022 passed by the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority, respectively. The respondents-landlord initiated eviction proceedings under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, for arrears of rent and non-payment of GST and maintenance charges. The tenanted premises, a 3129 sq ft commercial space, was leased on 03.02.2020 for 12 years at Rs. 2,12,772/- per month, with a rent-free period for setting up machinery. Arrears of rent were claimed from 16.06.2020 to July 2021. The petitioner admitted tenancy and lease deed but cited the Covid-19 pandemic for non-payment. The Rent Controller ordered provisional assessment and deposit of Rs. 34,44,138/- by 21.04.2022. The petitioner failed to comply, leading to an eviction order, which was upheld by the Appellate Authority.

Held

The Court held that while the Covid-19 pandemic presented extraordinary circumstances, the petitioner's conduct disentitled him from any discretionary relief. The petitioner failed to make any payment for over two years, did not offer arrears even at the first appeal stage, and did not make a specific prayer for extension before the lower courts, making it an afterthought. The Court noted that the petitioner continued to retain possession and run his business despite financial difficulties. The Court found no merit in the argument that the provisional assessment was wrong, as the rent-free period was correctly accounted for. Relying on Rakesh Wadhawan's case, the Court reiterated that non-payment of provisionally assessed rent within the prescribed period mandates an ejectment order. The Court also noted that the petitioner's argument regarding the rent-free period was not raised before the lower authorities. The Court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the eviction orders. The issue of the correctness of the provisional assessment was not expressly decided in favor of the petitioner due to his conduct.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, can extend the period for depositing provisionally assessed rent, considering the exceptional circumstances of the Covid-19 pandemic, as argued by the petitioner, who relied on CR-53-2014 and Mandeep Singh vs. M/s Imperial Gardens Pvt. Ltd. (2016(1) RCR (Civil) 265)? 2. Whether the petitioner's conduct, including non-payment of any rent for over two years and failure to offer arrears even at the first appeal stage, disentitles him from seeking discretionary relief, as contended by the respondents, who cited Rakesh Wadhawan vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation (2002(1) RCR (Rent) 514), Rajan @ Rajkumar Vs. Rakesh Kumar (2010 (2) PLR 2001), and Daya Ram and another Vs. Shabbir Ahmed (2019 (2) RCR (Rent) 356) to argue that no extension could be granted? 3. Whether the provisional assessment of rent was patently wrong due to the rent-free period being excluded, as argued by the petitioner?