LAW FOR ALL

The facts before the Court leave no manner of doubt that there was a stubborn and steadfast unwillingness on the part of the tenant to comply with the order passed by the Rent Controller even to the extent of non- deposit of rent for the period for which it was admittedly due and payable. The tenant even went to the extent of claiming that a direction could have only been issued for the deposit of the arrears and not for the payment of the rent for subsequent months as directed by the appellate court as a condition for the grant of stay. Accepting the line of interpretation which has been suggested by the respondents would lead to a situation where, though the rate of rent is not in dispute and the tenant admits that rent is due and payable for a certain duration of time (while disputing the quantum of arrears) the landlord in pursuance of a determination made on a provisional basis by the Rent Controller would be deprived of the rent due and payable, while the tenant takes a chance of being able to demonstrate in the course of an appeal against the order of eviction that the initial determination for a certain part of the period was not payable. In our view such an interpretation would defeat the object and purpose of Section 13 and the rationale for the decision of this Court in Wadhawan (supra) which has brought about a balance between the rights of the landlord and the tenant. If the respondents intended to dispute the claim of arrears for a specified period, there was no reason or justification for them not to deposit the rent. It needs to be kept in mind, that the legislative concession, extended to tenants through the proviso under Section 13(2)(i), is available conditionally. To be entitled to be saved against eviction, the tenant must satisfy the conditions laid down. To understand the words “assessed by the Rent Controller”, as “correctly assessed”, would not be proper. Arrears payable by a tenant, would be correctly assessed only after evidence is recorded and concluded. The instant assessment is clearly provisional. It is made, even before evidence has commenced to be recorded. Therefore, it would be improper to understand and extend to such assessment, any further meaning. Every kind of excuse was made by the tenant for not paying the rent due and payable. As we have set out earlier the cheques that were issued to the appellant were dishonoured. In this view of the matter, the tenant cannot have the benefit of the observations contained in the judgment of this Court in Harjit Singh Uppal (supra) for the simple reason that they would not come to the aid of a tenant who has not deposited even the admitted dues in pursuance of the determination which has been made by the Rent Controller, even though the proviso extends the concession, only to tenants who have complied. The High Court while determining whether the provisional determination of the Rent Controller was correct or otherwise could not have ignored the position that while the rent payable was Rupees 25,000 per month till 31 May 2006 and Rupees 28,000 per month from 1 June 2006, the Rent Controller had directed a deposit only of Rupees 19,000 per month. The Respondents deposited nothing within the period fixed and a deposit made in May 2008 would not enure to their benefit. For these reasons, we are of the view that the High Court fell into error in allowing the revision application against the judgment and order of the appellate authority and in setting aside the order of eviction. The Civil Revision filed by the respondents was liable to be dismissed and we order accordingly.