✦ Punjab & Haryana High Court · 15 Jul 2026

Rajound Dharamshala Samiti & Ors. v. HARSH BUNGER J

Case at a glance

Key paragraphs

  • Para 33. It appears that initially the petitioner as well as Raj Kumar did not appear in the aforesaid ejectment proceedings and accordingly, they were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 02.07.2024; however subsequently, on 24.01.2025, the present petitioner was allowed to join the proceedings…
  • Para 44. It transpires that learned Rent Controller, Kaithal vide order dated 08.09.2025 assessed the provisional rent of the tenanted premises @ Rs.2441/- per month for the period from 01.06.2023 up to 30.08.2025 (27 months) alongwith interest @ 8% and cost of Rs.1000/-. Accordingly, total arrears…
  • Para 1111. Concededly, learned Rent Controller had assessed the arrears of rent as per provisional assessment vide order dated 08.09.2025 and the petitioner was called upon to pay the same up to 14.10.2025. Apparently, more than one month’s period was given to the petitioner to pay…

Judgment

Present: Mr. Varun Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** HARSH BUNGER J. (ORAL)

#1. Prayer in the present civil revision petition is for setting aside of judgment dated 14.10.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Rent Controller, Kaithal and also the judgment dated 10.02.2026 passed by learned Appellate Authority, Kaithal.

#2. Briefly, respondents No.1 and 2 herein (Landlords) filed an ejectment petition against the present petitioner-Labh Singh and another person, namely Raj Kumar, wherein it was averred that Shop No.11 (ground-floor only) situated in the complex of Rajound Dharamshala, situated at Kaithal Assandh road, District Kaithal (in short the “tenanted premises”), was taken on rent by the present petitioner @ Rs.29,300/- per annum. The ejectment of the petitioner from the tenanted premises was sought on the following grounds:- CR-3120-2026 (O&M) -2- “i) that the petitioner was in arrears of rent and house tax since 01.06.2023; ii) that the petitioner had sub-let the tenanted premises in favour of Raj Kumar; iii) that the present petitioner has shifted to Germany and his whereabouts are not known and it is Raj Kumar, who is in possession and occupation of the tenanted premises; iv) that the tenanted premises was required by the landlords for their use and occupation for opening free Charitable Homeopathic clinic therein.”

#3. It appears that initially the petitioner as well as Raj Kumar did not appear in the aforesaid ejectment proceedings and accordingly, they were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 02.07.2024; however subsequently, on 24.01.2025, the present petitioner was allowed to join the proceedings and ex parte proceedings against him were set aside.

#4. It transpires that learned Rent Controller, Kaithal vide order dated 08.09.2025 assessed the provisional rent of the tenanted premises @ Rs.2441/- per month for the period from 01.06.2023 up to 30.08.2025 (27 months) alongwith interest @ 8% and cost of Rs.1000/-. Accordingly, total arrears of rent as per provisional assessment was determined as Rs.7,3058/-. Apparently, the aforesaid arrears of rent (as per provisional assessment) was not paid by the petitioner accordingly, learned Rent Controller, Kaithal vide order dated 14.10.2025, ordered eviction of the petitioner from the tenanted premises. CR-3120-2026 (O&M) -3-

#5. Feeling aggrieved against the eviction order dated 14.10.2025, the present petitioner preferred an appeal before learned Appellate Authority under the Rent Act, which has been dismissed vide order dated 10.02.2026.

#6. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the present revision petition has been filed before this Court.

#7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper-book with his able assistance.

#8. Evidently, the eviction of the petitioner from the tenanted premises had been ordered on account of the fact that the petitioner had failed to deposit the arrears of rent as per provisional assessment made by learned Rent Controller, Kaithal vide its order dated 08.09.2025. The only ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner before learned Appellate Authority as well as before this Court is that the petitioner had given the amount to his counsel however, his counsel, namely, Shri Varun Kumar, Advocate could not deposit the said amount on the date fixed i.e.

14.10.2025; as on the said date, learned counsel for the petitioner had to go to attend the death ceremony of his clerk’s father at village Jakholi, Kaithal.

#9. The aforesaid plea raised on behalf of the petitioner did not find favour with learned Appellate Authority who dismissed the same vide order dated 10.02.2026, by observing as under:- “17. Further, the receipt relied upon by the tenant itself shows that the alleged transfer was made on 14.10.2025 at 4:31 PM, whereas court hours are up to 04:30 PM. This circumstance prima facie indicates that the amount was transferred only after conclusion of court proceedings and after pronouncements of CR-3120-2026 (O&M) -4- the order. Such belated action appears to be an afterthought to crate a semblance of bone fides and cannot cure the default already committed.”

#10. A bare perusal of the above extracted findings returned by learned Appellate Authority would show that the petitioner had transferred the amount into the personal account of his counsel on 14.10.2025 itself and that too at 4:30 PM, i.e. after court hours.

#11. Concededly, learned Rent Controller had assessed the arrears of rent as per provisional assessment vide order dated 08.09.2025 and the petitioner was called upon to pay the same up to 14.10.2025. Apparently, more than one month’s period was given to the petitioner to pay the arrears of rent, which was not done and accordingly, while relying upon the judgment rendered in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan and others vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation & Ors. AIR 2002 SC 2004, the eviction of the petitioner was ordered. It is not disputed before this Court that the petitioner never laid any challenge to the order dated 08.09.2025, whereby the arrears of rent was determined by learned Rent Controller. It is also not shown that the petitioner had filed any application before learned Rent Controller seeking extension of time for payment of arrears of rent.

#12. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, once the petitioner had failed to pay the arrears of rent as determined by learned Rent Controller within the stipulated period; therefore, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rakesh Wadhawan (supra), nothing else remains to be done and order of eviction had to follow. CR-3120-2026 (O&M) -5-

#13. In my considered view, there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Courts below, which may call for any interference by this Court. Resultantly, the instant petition fails and the same is accordingly, dismissed.

#14. All the pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed.

15.07.2026 dinesh (HARSH BUNGER) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.

Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Punjab & Haryana High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Cr No. 3120 of 2026). ← Search more judgments