Can assess rent during eviction plea’s pendency; ‘pay and stay’ principle vital, rules HC
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that a rent controller – an authority handling disputes between landlords and tenants – has power to assess rent “pendente lite” or during the pendency of the litigation.
The ruling by Justice Pankaj Jain came in a case where a senior advocate appearing for a tenant referred to the eviction petition filed by the landlord to submit that the rent was claimed for a specific period. Citing settled law that the authorities could not travel beyond the relief sought in the petition, the counsel submitted that rent pendente lite assessed by the rent controller and upheld by the appellate authority could not be sustained as it was not claimed. The landlord’s counsel, on the other hand, submitted the tenant was still in possession of the premises, but had not paid rent during the eviction petition’s pendency.
Referring to the facts of the matter, Justice Jain asserted that the question before the court was whether rent controller while assessing provisional rent under the provisions of law was precluded from assessing rent “pendent lite”.
Justice Jain highlighted the difference between ‘rent due’ to be claimed by landlord and ‘arrears of rent’ to be paid by the tenant. The object was not only to protect tenant from being exploited at the hands of a trumped-up landlord, but also to put a check on an unscrupulous tenant intending to protect possession without paying rent.
Justice Jain asserted ‘pay and stay’ principle formed “life blood” of all tenancy laws. The relationship between landlord and the tenant was in nature of “reciprocatory promise”. The tenant paid for staying in the landlord’s property with his permission.
Justice Jain asserted a tenant enjoying protection under the statute did not lose his right to continue in possession merely on termination of contractual tenancy. The principle would hold good for his liability to pay rent as well. As such, the senior counsel’s contentions regarding the tenant’s right not to pay rent following the expiry/termination of lease deed lacked merit and was rejected. An amendment to the relevant provisions of law, rather, made it clear that the tenant could apply to the controller to pay rent even when the landlord refused to receive it.
Besides this, the “first and foremost ground” entitling the landlord to seek tenant’s eviction was ‘non-payment of rent’. Justice Jain also took note of the senior counsel’s argument that each default by a tenant in payment of rent gave the landlord a fresh cause of action to seek his eviction. As such, the landlord was required to file fresh eviction petition for default by a tenant regarding “rent pendent lite beyond the rent claimed in the eviction petition”.
Justice Jain by way of illustration observed in a case where a landlord was seeking eviction for non-payment of rent up to March 31, but the provisional rent was assessed by the rent controller in July, the tenant could be held to be in arrears of rent only up to March 31 and not beyond. “The contention if accepted shall lead to absurd results. Trite it is that the law cannot be read to render it absurd,” the court added.
