IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 126 CR-6121-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision.:04.09.2025 Sarita Sareen …..Pe..oner Vs. Yogesh James .….Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate for the peoner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) It is tenant’s revision against concurrent orders of evicon passed by the Courts below. 2. Peon under Secon 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restricon Act, 1949 was filed by the landlord Yogesh James (respondent herein) seeking evicon of the tenant Sarita Sareen (pe oner herein) from the tenanted premises on the ground of non-payment of rent with effect from 01.05.2023 onwards at the agreed monthly rent of ₹22,050/- and on the ground of personal necessity. 3. In the wri7en statement, the tenant denied the relaonship of landlord and tenant between the pares, though at the same me, claimed that she had already paid rent upto July, 2023 and was also ready to pay further rent but the peoner i.e. landlord had refused to receive the same. It was further pleaded that as per the informaon received by her (tenant) under RTI, one Darshan Singh was the owner of the demised premises. 4. Learned Rent Controller vide one of the impugned order dated 13.02.2025 assessed the provisional rent from 01.05.2023 to February, 2025 totaling ₹4,63,050/- and a?er making addion of interest and ligaon cost, adjourned the ma7er to 28.03.2025 for tendering of the total amount of ₹4,90,517/. However on the adjourned date of 28.03.2025, NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.09.05 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6121-2025 (O&M) the tenant i.e. peoner herein failed to make payment of the provisionally assessed rent and therefore, by referring to “Rakesh Wadhawan and Others vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporaon and Others” reported as AIR 2002 SC 2004, learned Rent Controller vide an order dated 28.03.2025 ordered ejectment of the tenant i.e. peoner herein. The said order was challenged by the tenant i.e. peoner herein before the Appellate Authority but the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 08.08.2025. 5. Now all the aforesaid three orders i.e., 13.02.2025 and 28.03.2025 of learned Rent Controller; and order dated 08.08.2025 of the Appellate Authority have been assailed before this Court. 6. It is contended by learned counsel that prior to the assessment of the provisional rent, an applicaon had been moved by the peoner- tenant for amendment of the wri7en statement to the effect that peoner of the case i.e. Yogesh James was not the owner of the demised premises. However, without considering that applicaon, the provisional rent was assessed and on account of non-payment of the same, the ejectment orders have been passed. It is also the contenon of learned counsel that the Rent Controller had also framed the issues on 13.02.2025 and specific issue had framed as to whether their existed landlord-tenant relaonship between the pares. It is urged that the issue regarding relaonship was yet to be decided on the basis of evidence and so, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. 7. This Court does not find merit in any of the submissions. 8. The reply (Annexure P-2) to the main peon filed before learned Rent Controller by the tenant i.e. pe oner herein would reveal that it was candidly admi7ed therein that she i.e. tenant had been paying the rent @ ₹20,000/- per month excluding electricity and water charges and that she had already paid the rent upto July, 2023. 9. In view of the aforesaid stand taken by the peoner herein NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.09.05 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6121-2025 (O&M) i.e. tenant, learned Rent Controller was jusfied in assessing the provisional rent. 10. The tenant i.e. peoner herein cannot take the plea that her applicaon seeking amendment of the reply, whereby she wanted to dispute the tle of landlord by elaborang this aspect, should have been considered earlier. 11. It is further to be noted that a?er the provisional rent was assessed by the Rent Controller on 13.02.2025, that order was not challenged by the peoner within reasonable me. Rather, she i.e. tenant assailed that order only a?er passing of the evicon order by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the Appellate Authority. A?er the peoner- tenant had failed to make payment of the provisional rent as assessed by the Rent Controller, the Rent Controller was jusfied in ordering evicon of the peoner-tenant in view of the legal posion explained by Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Rakesh Wadhawan’s case (supra). 12. As such, this Court does not find any merit in this peon and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. All the miscellaneous applicaon(s), if any, stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE September 04, 2025 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.09.05 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document