SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(P&H) 932

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jaswant Singh
CR 6708 of 2013 (O&M)
Sunita Bansal & Anr.
v.
Mr. Suresh Kumar Goyal
{Decided on 08/11/2013}

Advocates:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Mohinder Singh Joshi, Advocate.

Headnote:East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, S.13--Eviction--Provisional Rent--Determination of--Rent deed was not registered--Therefore, increment clause cannot be looked into this stage--Admitted rent ordered to be paid as provisional rent.

       

JUDGMENT

Mr. Jaswant Singh, J. (Oral):- Since there is delay of 148 days in filing the revision petition, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act bearing CM No.22162-CII/2013 has been filed seeking condonation of said delay. The application is supported by an affidavit of one of the petitioners.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, duly supported by the affidavit, the cause shown is sufficient. Hence application is allowed and delay of 148 days in filing the present revision petition is condoned.

3. Main Case.

The landladies are aggrieved against the order dated 4.3.2013 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh whereby provisional rent for the demised premises has been assessed payable w.e.f. 1.9.2011 @ Rs.8266/- per month.

4. It is contended that in the rent agreement dated 1.1.2007 (P1), the relevant clause provided an increase of 7% every year and the learned Rent Controller has not taken into account the said clause while fixing the assessed rate. It is further argued that the lease deed of a similar premises (P4) shows that the prevalent market rent is Rs.55,000/- per month and therefore, the prevalent rent assessed is on lower side.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court finds that the present revision petition is devoid of any merit.

6. The relationship of landlord and tenant is not disputed. However, the landlord is claiming rate of rent to be Rs.22000/- per month on the basis of rent note (P1) whereas the tenant admits the rate of rent @ Rs.8266/- per month. It is not in dispute that the said rent note is not a registered document and therefore, future clause cannot be looked into at this stage. The learned Rent Controller in view of the admitted rate of rent has correctly assumed the rate of rent @ Rs.8266/- per month while assessing the prevalent rent since the same is subject to final adjustment at the conclusion of the proceedings.

7. In view of the above discussion, no ground for interference is made out. Hence the present revision petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to be deposited with District Legal Service Authority, Chandigarh.

---------0.B.S.0------------


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top