Satwinder Kaur v. Teja Singh

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Sarjit Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms. Anjali Khosla, Advocate for the petitioners. S.D.ANAND, J. The petitioner is in revision against two orders dated

23.1.2008 granted by the learned Rent Controller and dated

20.2.2010 granted by the learned Appellate Authority directing her ejectment from the tenanted premises on a plea filed by the respondent-landlord. Both the Courts recorded a finding that petitioner-tenant is liable to be evicted on account of her being in arrears of rent. The view obtained by both the Courts proceeded on a law laid down by the Apex Court in Rakesh Wadhawan Vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, AIR 2002 SC 2004. The outer limit within which a Revisional Court can undertake the adjudicatory exercise was provided by the Apex Court in judicial pronouncements reported as Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited 1999 (1) Punjab Law Reporter 805 Civil Revision No. 2022 of 2010 -2- **** and Shamshad Ahmad and others Vs. Tilak Rak Bajaj (deceased) through LRs. and others (2008) 9 Supreme Court Cases 1. On perusal thereof, it can safely be culled out that “a reappraisal of evidence can be made, but that should be for the limited purpose to ascertain whether the conclusion arrived at by the fact finding court is wholly unreasonable.” The constriction of revisional powers noticed, the adjudicatory exercise is undertaken as under:- In revision, the petitioner has filed a plea for amendment of the written statement so as to be able to make an averment in the course thereof that the respondent being owner only ½ share in the tenanted premises could not have let out the whole premises. In support of the plea for allowance of that petition, it is argued by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the allowance of the plea would enable the petitioner herein to prove that there was no relationship between the tenant and landlord qua the other part of the premises and thus eviction therefrom would not be feasible. It is apparent from the material obtaining on the file that the petitioner herein had earlier filed a plea for amendment of the written statement to aver that the sale deed Ex. P2 was an act of fraud. That plea was declined by the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 21.11.2007. The petitioner herein filed a Civil Revision No.117 of 2008 which came to be negatived by this Court vide order dated 10.1.2008. The petitioner has filed the present plea only during the pendency of this petition before this Court. The plea Civil Revision No. 2022 of 2010 -3- **** raised is much belated to deserve condonation and consequent consideration. Faced with the predicament of the disallowance of the amendment plea, learned Senior Counsel is not in a position to persuade this Court to hold that present case is not covered by the law laid down in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra). The position which emerges from a perusal of Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra) is that the provisionally assessed rent has to be compulsively paid by the tenant in order to avoid an obvious eviction. In this case, the provisionally assessed rent was not paid up. In that view of things, the petitioner cannot wish away imminent eviction. Reliance placed by learned counsel upon Hirendra Nath Poddar and others Vs. Sjibendra Nath Poddar and others 1979 (1) R.C.R. (Rent) 338 is misconceived. That case was based upon the interpretation put in the definitive provisions of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. It has no application in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. However, in view of the verbal presentation, the petitioner shall have one year time from today to vacate the premises aforementioned subject to payment of rent regularly. April 19, 2010 Pka (S.D.Anand) Judge