HC raps Judge for adjournments

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, January 2

Adjourning a rent matter 13 times in about three months has virtually landed a Chandigarh Judge in trouble. Justice Deepak Sibal of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has referred the matter to the Administrative Judge of Chandigarh Sessions Division for further action.

The direction came after Justice Sibal, among other things, took note of contradictions in the stand taken by the counsel for the parties and the orders by the Judge-Rent Controller.

The counsels for the parties were claiming that the matter was adjourned for pronouncement of the final order. The interim orders, on the other hand, said the adjournments were for hearing final arguments. Justice Sibal made it clear that in either of the situation, the development was improper.

The developments came on a petition by Harmanjit Singh against Rattan Lal Jain. The respondent - landlord had filed a petition in September 2014 for eviction of petitioner from the second floor rear portion of a Sector 20 shop-cum-office.

The eviction was sought on the ground that the petitioner was in arrears of rent and that the respondent needed the tenanted premises for his son’s use. The rent controller, in September 2015, assessed provisional monthly rent at Rs 12,000. Aggrieved, the tenant challenged the order by way of an appeal. The present petition was preferred on the dismissal of the appeal.

The High Court, in April, last year, took note of the submissions that the eviction petition was stated to be at the final stage and was listed in May 2017 for final arguments.

The court specifically observed that it would be open for the Rent Controller to decide the main eviction petition on the basis of evidence even during the pendency of the present petition.

Justice Sibal observed counsels for the parties, on a query by the Bench, submitted that the final arguments in the main eviction petition were heard by the Rent Controller on September 15, 2017. Thereafter, the matter was posted for pronouncement of orders on least 13 occasions.

Justice Sibal added that interim orders by the Rent Controller after September 15 presented a “more serious issue”. The Rent Controller, in each order, was adjourning the matter for final arguments.

Justice Sibal said if the statement by the counsel was to be accepted, 13 adjournments for pronouncement of the final order were unacceptable. Even if the interim orders were to be believed, adjourning the matter only for hearing final arguments was unjustified.

Describing the contradiction as a serious matter, Justice Sibal concluded: “Let the present order be brought to the notice of the Administrative Judge of the UT, Chandigarh, for further action as he may be deem fit in accordance with law”.

Rent case deferred 13 times

The developments came on a petition by Harmanjit Singh against Rattan Lal Jain. The respondent - landlord had filed a petition in September 2014 for eviction of petitioner from the second floor rear portion of a Sector 20 shop-cum-office. The direction came after Justice Deepak Sibal of the HC, among other things, took note of contradictions in the stand taken by the counsel for the parties and the orders by the Judge-Rent Controller. The rent case was adjourned 13 times in about three months by the city Judge.