The court emphasized that in cases where the tenant disputes the relationship of landlord and tenant, the Rent Controller is not expected to pass an assessment order of rent directing the tenant to pay that rent.

M.M.Kumar, J.

1. This petition filed under sub-section (5) of Section 15 of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 , is directed against the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below that the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties and the landlord-respondent has rented the demised premises to the tenant-petitioner @ Rs. 800/- p.m. and he has failed to pay the rent w.e.f. 1.4.1987. It has further been held that the tenant-petitioner has made additions and alterations causing material impairment to the value and utility of the premises. The views of the Appellate Authority while affirming the findings of facts recorded by the Rent Controller read as under :

"After hearing counsel for the parties, I find that the appeal is liable to be dismissed because admittedly the appellant had been in possession of the demised premises as a tenant under Gian Singh and he had been paying rent to him. The appellant alleges that in December, 1995 he had handed over possession to Gian Singh which is denied and Ld. counsel for the appellant could not show any evidence to prove that he had surrendered possession in favour of Gian Singh. Now by way of additional evidence, the appellant wants to prove that possession was delivered to Gian Singh by the appellant and it was taken over by the Punjab Wakf Board. No documentary evidence has been sought to be produced to prove the delivery of possession to the Punjab Wakf Board. It is only stated that the possession was delivered to Pujan Wakf Board in the presence of three witnesses mentioned in the application. Firstly, the appellant could produce this oral evidence at the time when he was afforded opportunity to lead evidence as the witnesses were known to him and he was also in the knowledge of the ground taken by him that possession was delivered to the Punjab Wakf Board by Gian Singh. Secondly, even if the said witnesses are examined by the appellant in his favour, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of those witnesses as they will be deposing orally and the surrending of possession by the appellant in favour of Gian Singh and taking over the same by Punjab Wakf Board could be proved only by documentary evidence. Therefore, no case is made out for allowing additional evidence. It is proved from the documentary evidence that the appellant never surrendered possession in favour of Gian Singh. Previously, the appellant had filed a suit for injunction restraining respondent Gian Singh from dispossessing him forcibly on the allegations that appellant was occupying the property in dispute as a tenant @ Rs. 800/- p.m. The fact was admitted by Gian Singh that appellant was occupying the building as a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 800/- and a statement was made by counsel for Gian Singh that the appellant shall not be dispossessed otherwise than in due course of law. The previous suit was then dismissed on 3.1.1996. Therefore, the plea of the appellant that he had surrendered possession in favour of Gian Singh and he was allotted the property in dispute by Punjab Wakf Board in December, 1995 stands falsified."

2. I have heard Shri Ashok Pruthi, learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner who has argued that in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and others, 2002(1) RCR 514 (SC) : (2002) 5 SCC 440, the Rent Controller should have made an interim assessment for payment of rent to the landlord-respondent. In the absence of assessment order framed by the Rent Controller, the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan (supra) would stand violated. The learned counsel has also made an attempt to persuade me to accept the view that the landlord-respondent was not his landlord and the property in dispute is now owned and possessed by the Wakf Board.

3. I have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the tenant-petit