Punjab & Haryana High Court Remands Rent Appeal for Fresh Decision on Additional Grounds of Eviction Under East Punjab Urban Rent Act

Case Name: Tarsem Lal v. Rajiv Chopra & Others
Date of Judgment: January 7, 2015
Citation: CR No. 483 of 2000
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.P. Nagrath

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court set aside the order of the Appellate Authority that had upheld an eviction decree solely on the ground of non-payment of rent and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication on the remaining grounds of eviction under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. Justice R.P. Nagrath held that while the finding of valid service of summons upon the tenant was correctly recorded and required no interference, the Appellate Authority erred in not deciding other grounds raised by the landlady—namely, change of user and material diminution in the value or utility of the premises. The Court directed the Appellate Authority to reconsider the appeal in light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation (2002) 5 SCC 440.

Summary: The petitioner, Tarsem Lal, tenant of the disputed premises, challenged concurrent findings of eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. An ex parte eviction order was initially passed in 1993, which was later set aside by the Appellate Authority for lack of proper service. Subsequent rounds of litigation followed, with multiple remands between the Rent Controller, the Appellate Authority, and the High Court to determine whether the tenant had been duly served. Upon re-evaluation, both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority concluded that valid service had been effected.

However, while affirming the eviction on grounds of non-payment, the Appellate Authority failed to address other statutory grounds raised by the landlady specifically, the alleged change of user and acts diminishing the property’s value. The tenant contended that rent had been duly deposited as directed by the court’s interim order and that his case was protected under the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rakesh Wadhawan (supra), which requires an opportunity to pay arrears before ordering eviction. The High Court found merit in this contention and noted that the appellate forum had not complied with earlier directions issued in a previous revision (CR No. 5383 of 1997) to decide all issues comprehensively.

Decision: Allowing the revision petition partly, the High Court remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority to re-decide the appeal in accordance with law, except on the issue of valid service, which stood concluded. The Court directed the authority to also consider the applicability of Rakesh Wadhawan and adjudicate the other grounds of eviction within three months, given that the rent petition had been pending since 1991.