In CR-3584-2023-PUNJ HC- P&H HC dismisses revision petition of tenant against whom eviction order was passed as he intended to drag matter from one Court to another & take advantage of technicalities
Justice Jagmohan Bansal [06-07-2023]

Read Order: KAMALJIT THAKUR Vs. MANOHAR SINGH GUJRAL 

Tulip Kanth

Chandigarh, June 8, 2023: While considering the fact that the tenant only wanted to drag the matter from one Court to another, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed his revision petition  whereby he sought setting aside of order vacating the grant of conditional stay on the order of eviction.

“He wants to drag the matter from one Court to another Court and take advantage of technicalities”,  Justice Jagmohan Bansal asserted.

The case of the petitioner was that petitioner had been the tenant and the rent deed was executed through General Power of Attorney-Gurbachan Kaur vide lease deed. When she passed away, her husband started collecting rent from the petitioner. The husband filed eviction petition against the petitioner on account of non-payment of rent. The Rent Controller refused to assess provisional rent after noticing the fact that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

The respondent’s appeal was allowed by the Appellate Authority and the Rent Controller was directed to assess the provisional rent. The Rent Controller passed a fresh order whereby provisional rent was determined and petitioner was directed to deposit rent. The petitioner failed to deposit provisional rent and accordingly the Rent Controller passed an order of eviction.

The petitioner feeling aggrieved preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court which stayed the operation of eviction order subject to payment of arrears of rent @ Rs 26,804 per month w.e.f September, 2019. The petitioner did not deposit arrears of rent and Appellate Court vacated the order whereby the Controller’s Order was stayed.

The Bench noted that the petitioner is admittedly a tenant of the premises and he is not owner of the premises. He is not paying rent since September, 2019.

“ The petitioner by acquiescing to order dated 27.05.2022 passed by the Appellate Court and thereafter order dated 29.10.2022 passed by Rent Controller is precluded from impugning the order dated 21.04.2023 whereby interim order passed by Appellate Court has been vacated”, the Bench said.

It was noticed by the Bench that the petitioner at the first instance did not challenge order whereby stay was granted and at this stage when stay had been vacated, he had opted to file the petition in question assailing earlier orders.

Thus, the Bench dismissed the revision petition.