Punja In Th High Court · 2025

The present civil revision petition The rticle etition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the C the Constitution of India for setting a .2025 tting aside the order dated 27.11.2025 (Annexure P-7) p 7) passed by the learned Judicial M icial Magistrate 1st Class, SAS Nagar, agar, Mohali vide wh hich defence of the respondent-t o tenant has been struck off due to non-payment of f provisionally assessed rent, ins n stead of passing order of eviction against him.

Succinctly, the facts of the case are Succ d had se are that the petitioner-landlord had rented out his fla his flat bearing No.106 in Block 7 of M rative 7 of Mohali Employees Cooperative Housing Building uilding Society, situated at Sector 68, dent- tor 68, SAS Nagar to the respondent tenant. Since the nce the respondent-tenant fell into arre s, the to arrears of rent and other dues, the petitioner-landlor landlord filed an eviction petition un ion under Section 20 of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995

1995. On 01.11.2025, the learned d the arned Rent Controller assessed the provisional rent p l rent payable from 01.08.2024 to 30. est, at to 30.10.2025, along with interest, at ₹2,90,462/-, and , and adjourned the matter to 27 f the to 27.11.2025 for payment of the aforesaid provisi visional rent by the respondent- -tenant. On 27.11.2025, learned counsel for the r the respondent–tenant made a state t was a statement that the respondent was PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.12.24 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh C.R. No.9724 of 724 of 2025 (O&M) -2- ready with a su a sum of ₹1,00,000/- as partial ten tial tender towards the provisionally assessed rent; ho nt; however, the petitioner–landlord d e, as dlord declined to accept the same, as the offer was n was not acceptable to him. Conse f the Consequently, the defence of the respondent–tenan tenant was struck off, and the case w 25 for case was adjourned to 22.12.2025 for recording the evi the evidence of the petitioner–landlord ndlord. Aggrieved by the order dated

27.11.2025, the , the petitioner has approached this resent d this Court by way of the present tition. revision petition.

Learned counsel for Lear the petitio petitioner submits that since respondent-landl landlord has failed to comply with .2025 y with the order dated 01.11.2025 passed by the lea the learned Rent Controller, as he faile l rent e failed to tender the provisional rent so assessed, an e , an eviction order ought to have be Rent ave been passed by the learned Rent Controller instea instead of striking off the defence t and fence of the respondent-tenant and keeping the matt e matter for evidence of the petition of his etitioner-landlord. In support of his contention, he re relies upon the judgment passed f this assed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Santosh tosh Kumar Vs. Santosh Rani 2025 2025(1) RCR (Rent) 429 to contend that non-paymen ayment of provisionally assessed rent o rent on the first date of hearing after assessment by th t by the Rent Controller warrants an e ts an eviction order under the Punjab Rent Act, 1995.

1995. Thus, he prayed for setting as .2025 ing aside the order dated 27.11.2025 passed by the lea the learned Rent Controller.

Heard. Hea A perusal of the impugned order da A pe rder dated 27.11.2025 clearly reveals that the respond spondent-tenant had offered Rs.1 lak rd as s.1 lakh to the petitioner-landlord as partial tender to owards provisionally assessed ren ed rent, which offer was turned down by the petitioner itioner-landlord and in this eventualit troller ntuality, the learned Rent Controller has struck off th off the defence of the respondent- er for -tenant and fixed the matter for PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.12.24 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh C.R. No.9724 of 724 of 2025 (O&M) -3-

22.12.2025 for for recording evidence of the pe is no petitioner-landlord. There is no dispute with the th the law settled that after determinat case, rmination of provisional rent, in case, a tenant fails to d ils to deposit the same, then nothing re er for hing remains to be done and order for ejectment has to has to be passed. However, in the pres tenant e present case, the respondent–tenant had offered a p d a partial tender of the provisiona visionally assessed rent, which was refused by the pe the petitioner–landlord. It is further pe n has ther pertinent to note that eviction has been sought not ht not only on the ground of non-pa n the payment of rent but also on the ground of person personal necessity. The order assessin ly an ssessing provisional rent is merely an interlocutory ord ry order, and the final determination nation of rent may differ from such interim or provis provisional assessment. In other wor ed by r words, if the amount deposited by the tenant is ultim is ultimately found to be in excess, th r may ess, the learned Rent Controller may order its refund. fund. Conversely, if the amount depo icient t deposited is found to be insufficient or deficient, the t, the learned Rent Controller may pa ecting ay pass a conditional order directing the tenant to pu to put the landlord in possession of ion of the premises, while granting reasonable time t time to the tenant to pay or tender the der the deficit amount, and only upon failure to do so w o so would the tenant become liable to able to eviction.

Since the respondent–tenant offered Sinc ffered to tender a sum of ₹1,00,000/ ,000/- out of the provi provisionally assessed rent of ₹2,9 – ₹2,90,462/-, which the petitioner– landlord declined eclined to accept, the learned Rent Co nalize ent Controller proceeded to penalize the respondent– –tenant by striking off his defenc er for defence and adjourned the matter for recording the evi the evidence of the petitioner. The res e said he respondent–tenant cannot be said to have wilfully d lfully defaulted in the payment of rent, f rent, as he had tendered ₹1,00,000/ ,000/- towards the prov e provisionally assessed rent, which – hich was refused by the petitioner– landlord. The pet he petitioner–landlord had the option ffered ption to accept the amount so offered under protest an est and to seek the imposition of a n the of a time-bound direction upon the PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.12.24 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh C.R. No.9724 of 724 of 2025 (O&M) -4- respondent–tenan tenant to make good the remaining ining deficiency; however, he chose instead to outrigh outrightly reject the offer.

In view of the aforesaid facts and d circumstances, this Court find no ground to i interfere with the impugned ord rder passed by the learned Ren Controller. Ho owever, keeping in view the fac d ct that the respondent-tenant had offered only pa artial payment of provisionally a n assessed rent, which has not been accepted by the e petitioner-landlord, the learne o ed Rent Controller is directed to dispose of the r rent petition as expeditiously as a possible and preferably within a period of three months from today.

Th he instant revision petition is d dismissed with the aforesaid observations. December 23, 20 Pankaj* , 2025 (AMAR MARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reaso Whether reportable g/reasoned : : Yes/No Yes/No PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.12.24 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh