IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 136 CR-6392-2026 Date of decision: 26.08.2026 DEEPAK JAIN . . . . Petitioner Vs. Gautam Jain and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA **** Present: - Mr. Mani Ram Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been invoked by one of the landlords assailing the order dated 30.07.2026 (Annexure P-17) passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Jind in Rent Appeal No.2 of 2026, titled Gautam Jain v. Manoj Jain and others, whereby the interim protection operating in favour of the tenants has been continued. 2. The relevant facts, in brief, are that an eviction petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, filed by Manoj Jain, Deepak Jain and Navin Jain against Gautam Jain and Smt. Bimal Jain in respect of the demised premises, was allowed by the learned Rent Controller, Jind vide order dated 02.01.2026. 3. The tenants preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority. During the pendency of the appeal, operation of the ejectment order was stayed vide order dated 09.05.2026. The said order was assailed before this Court by one of the landlords, namely, Deepak Jain, by filing CR-4628-2026. The said revision petition was disposed of by this Court on 29.05.2026 with the following modification: “That being so, the instant revision petition is disposed of with a modification in the order dated 09.05.2026 that stay of operation of the order dated 02.01.2026 shall be subject to payment of entire arrears of rent (as assessed VIVEK PAHWA 2026.08.27 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6392-2026 2026:PHHC: 119866 by the Court of Rent Controller) on or before the date fixed before Appellate Authority i.e. 14.07.2026 and also subject to payment of monthly rent on or before the 10th of every month.” 4. Pursuant thereto, the tenant-appellant moved an application before the learned Appellate Authority for determination of the amount of rent payable. The stand taken by the tenant was that the landlords had already received rent upto 31.03.2014. It was further pleaded that the other co- sharers, who were owners of 3/4th share in the property, had sold their respective share to the applicant and his aunt vide registered sale deed dated 13.07.2018 and that the applicant had paid 3/4th share of the rent upto 30.08.2026 to the said co-sharers against receipts. According to the tenant, therefore, only 1/4th share of the rent, calculated at ₹145/- per month out of the total rent of ₹580/- per month, was payable to the respondent-landlord with effect from 01.04.2014. 5. The learned Appellate Authority, after considering the application and the reply thereto, determined the amount payable at ₹21,460/- vide order dated 14.07.2026 (Annexure P-10) and directed the appellant-tenant to pay the said amount to respondent No.3. The tenant thereafter moved an application seeking continuation of the interim protection. The said application has been allowed by the impugned order dated 30.07.2026. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord has contended that the entire arrears of rent from April 2014 onwards have not been paid and, therefore, the learned Appellate Authority ought not to have continued the interim protection without first determining the entire amount of arrears payable to the landlords. 7. Having considered the submission, this Court finds no merit therein. 8. The scope of the present proceedings has to be examined in the light of the order dated 29.05.2026 passed by this Court in CR-4628-2026. By the said order, the continuation of the stay granted by the Appellate Authority was made conditional upon payment of the entire arrears of rent as assessed by the Court of Rent Controller, by the date fixed before the Appellate VIVEK PAHWA 2026.08.27 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6392-2026 2026:PHHC: 119866 Authority. The direction was thus intended to ensure that the tenant did not continue to enjoy the protection against execution of the ejectment order without satisfying the monetary condition imposed by this Court. 9. In pursuance of the aforesaid direction, the question regarding the amount payable was considered by the learned Appellate Authority on the basis of the rival stands of the parties. Vide order dated 14.07.2026, the amount payable was quantified at ₹21,460/-. The petitioner has not shown that the said order determining the amount of rent was ever assailed by him before this Court or any other competent forum. In the absence of any challenge to the said determination, the petitioner cannot, in the present proceedings, proceed on the premise that the amount determined by the learned Appellate Authority was not the amount payable for the purposes of the condition imposed by this Court. 10. It is also important that this Court, while passing the order dated 29.05.2026, had not directed that the Appellate Authority should, as a condition precedent to continuation of the stay, undertake an independent adjudication of all disputes relating to the title of the parties or the ultimate liability towards rent. The direction was confined to payment of the arrears as assessed in accordance with the order of the Rent Controller. The learned Appellate Authority thereafter considered the rival claims and quantified the amount payable. Once the said determination remained unchallenged and the amount so determined was paid, the basic condition imposed by this Court stood satisfied. 11. The contention now sought to be raised by the petitioner essentially amounts to reopening the determination dated 14.07.2026 without the same having been specifically assailed. Such a course cannot be permitted in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, particularly when the impugned order merely continues the interim protection already granted in the pending appeal after recording compliance with the condition imposed by this Court. 12. It is well settled that the jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory and is not to be exercised merely because another view of the VIVEK PAHWA 2026.08.27 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6392-2026 2026:PHHC: 119866 matter may be possible. Interference is warranted where the subordinate Court or Tribunal has acted without jurisdiction, failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it, or its order suffers from patent illegality or perversity. No such infirmity has been demonstrated in the impugned order. 13. The present revision petition is, accordingly, found to be devoid of merit and is dismissed. 14. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are confined to the question of continuation of the interim protection and compliance with the condition imposed by this Court vide order dated 29.05.2026. Nothing contained in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the rival claims of the parties in the pending rent appeal, including their respective rights or liability in relation to rent, which shall be decided by the learned Appellate Authority in accordance with law. 15. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) 26.08.2026 JUDGE Vivek Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No VIVEK PAHWA 2026.08.27 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document