A significant clarification has emerged from the Punjab and Haryana High Court on the conditions under which a tenant may be evicted for non-payment of rent during the pendency of an eviction petition. The Court held that absence of a specific direction from the Rent Controller to deposit future rent renders non-payment non-actionable, even if substantial arrears exist.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Sanjay Wadhwa, is the landlord of two commercial shops in Faridabad. He filed an eviction petition against the respondent, Gyanchand, the tenant, alleging wilful default in payment of rent. The Rent Controller had previously assessed provisional rent at Rs. 4,000 per month for the period from 01.06.2022 to 30.04.2024, totaling 23 months. The tenant paid the assessed amount, including arrears, interest, and costs, as directed.
Key Facts
- The petitioner filed the eviction petition seeking ejectment on grounds of non-payment of rent from 01.05.2024 onwards.
- The Rent Controller, by order dated 03.02.2025, assessed provisional rent at Rs. 4,000 per month for the period 01.06.2022 to 30.04.2024.
- The tenant deposited Rs. 1,00,360/- as directed, covering arrears, interest, and costs for the 23-month period.
- The petitioner claimed the tenant had defaulted on rent for the subsequent period from 01.05.2024 to 31.08.2025 (16 months), amounting to Rs. 64,000/-.
- The Rent Controller dismissed the eviction application, holding that no direction had been issued for payment of future rent.
Procedural History
- 03.02.2025: Rent Controller passes order assessing provisional rent at Rs. 4,000/month for 01.06.2022 to 30.04.2024; directs deposit of Rs. 1,00,360/-.
- 16.01.2026: Rent Controller dismisses landlord’s application for eviction on grounds of non-payment of rent from 01.05.2024.
- 18.03.2026: Revision petition filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner (Landlord):
- Argued that under the law, a tenant is duty-bound to pay rent during pendency of eviction proceedings.
- Relied on Meera Devi (D) through LR v. Dinesh Chandra Joshi (D) through LRs (2025(2) ICC 492) and Rakesh Wadhawan v. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation (2002(2) RLR 36) to assert that non-payment of rent during pendency constitutes a ground for eviction.
- Contended that the Rent Controller erred in not recognizing the tenant’s default from 01.05.2024.
For the Respondent (Tenant):
- Stated full compliance with the Rent Controller’s order dated 03.02.2025.
- Emphasized that no direction was issued to deposit rent accruing after 30.04.2024.
- Argued that a tenant cannot be penalized for non-compliance with a non-existent order.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought setting aside of the Rent Controller’s order dated 16.01.2026 and an order of eviction against the tenant for non-payment of rent from 01.05.2024 to 31.08.2025.
The Legal Issue
Can a tenant be ordered to be evicted for non-payment of rent accruing after the period covered by a provisional rent order, when the Rent Controller has not directed payment of such future rent?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel contended that the tenant’s obligation to pay rent continues during the pendency of eviction proceedings, irrespective of whether a specific direction has been issued. Reliance was placed on Meera Devi and Rakesh Wadhawan, which, according to counsel, establish that wilful non-payment of rent during litigation is a ground for eviction. The petitioner argued that the Rent Controller’s failure to issue a direction was an oversight, not a legal bar to eviction.
For the Respondent
The tenant’s counsel countered that the Rent Controller’s order dated 03.02.2025 was limited to arrears up to 30.04.2024. No direction was issued for payment of rent accruing thereafter. The tenant had fully complied with the only order in force. Citing the principle that a party cannot be made to suffer due to the court’s omission, the respondent argued that eviction cannot be predicated on non-compliance with a non-existent directive.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a careful review of the Rent Controller’s order dated 03.02.2025 and found that it contained no direction requiring the tenant to deposit rent accruing from 01.05.2024 onwards. The order was confined to arrears for the period 01.06.2022 to 30.04.2024. The Court emphasized that the tenant’s obligation to pay rent during pendency is not self-executing; it requires a specific judicial direction.
"Had the Rent Controller passed an order directing the tenant to deposit or pay future rent to the landlord, the respondent-tenant would have been bound to comply with the said direction and would have been liable to be evicted on account of non-compliance in view of law laid down in Meera Devi’s case (supra). However, since no such direction was issued by the Rent Controller, which it ought to have issued, no eviction can be ordered as respondent has not disobeyed any order of the Court."
The Court further held that the principle of natural justice and fairness precludes penalizing a party for non-compliance with an order that was never issued. The Court acknowledged that the Rent Controller should have issued a direction for future rent, but noted that the tenant cannot be held in default for failing to comply with a non-existent obligation. The Court observed that the landlord’s remedy lies in seeking a fresh direction from the Rent Controller, not in invoking eviction as a punitive measure.
The Verdict
The revision petition was dismissed. The Court upheld the Rent Controller’s order dated 16.01.2026, holding that the tenant cannot be evicted for non-payment of rent from 01.05.2024 to 31.08.2025 in the absence of a specific direction to deposit future rent. The petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh application before the Rent Controller seeking an order directing payment of rent accruing from 01.05.2024 onwards.
What This Means For Similar Cases
A Direction Is Mandatory for Future Rent
- Practitioners must ensure that applications for eviction based on non-payment of future rent are accompanied by a prayer for a specific direction to deposit such rent.
- Without a court order directing payment of rent accruing after the assessed period, eviction petitions on this ground will fail.
- The burden is on the landlord to seek and obtain a clear direction, not on the tenant to anticipate it.
Judicial Omission Does Not Create Liability
- Tenants cannot be held liable for non-compliance with judicial directions that were never issued.
- Courts must be vigilant in issuing directions for future rent during pendency to avoid creating legal uncertainty.
- Landlords must not assume that the mere pendency of an eviction petition creates an automatic obligation to pay future rent without a court order.
Procedural Rigor Over Substantive Claims
- The Court prioritized procedural compliance over the substantive claim of default.
- Even if the tenant has not paid rent for 16 months, the absence of a direction renders the default legally irrelevant for eviction purposes.
- This reinforces the principle that rent control proceedings are statutory and must strictly follow prescribed procedures.
