Back
2013 Supreme(P&H) 1561
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.
Anita Dhillon - Appellant
Versus
Ujaldeep Singh Samundari - Respondent
CR No. 5606 of 2013
Decided On : 16-09-2013
The determination of rent amount and arrears of rent requires evidence and delay in filing a revision petition may not warrant relief.
Headnote:
Rent Control - Tenant's Revision Petition - Provisional Rent Assessment
Fact of the Case:
The tenant filed a revision petition challenging the provisional rent assessment by the Rent Controller, claiming that the rent agreement was forged and the rent amount was incorrect.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the dispute regarding the actual rent amount could only be determined after leading evidence by the parties and that the issue of arrears of rent was still pending before the Rent Controller.
Issues: Dispute over the actual rent amount and arrears of rent, request for time extension for compliance with the order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the determination of the actual rent amount and arrears of rent required further evidence and that the tenant's delay in filing the revision petition did not warrant any relief.
Final Decision: The tenant's revision petition was dismissed.
CM No. 18986-CII of 2013
1. Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CR No. 5606 of 2013 (O&M)
This is tenant's revision petition challenging the order dated 8.8.2013 of the Rent Controller, U.T., Chandigarh whereby provisional rent of the demised premises has been assessed as under:
2. As per the case of the respondent-landlord, the demised premises were rented out to the petitioner on 5.3.2011 vide rent agreement whereby monthly rent of the demised premises was fixed at ` 11,000/- p.m. It is the case of the respondent-landlord that the petitioner was in arrears of rent @ ` 11,000/- per month w.e.f. 2.11.2011 and thus, she was liable to be evicted.
3. The Rent Controller, Chandigarh vide impugned order assessed the provisional rent @ ` 11,000/- per month w.e.f. 2.11.2011 upto 31.8.2013.
4. There is no dispute with regard to the period for which the petitioner is in arrears of rent. However, before this Court, a grievance has been raised that the rate of rent is in fact ` 5,000/- per month and the claim of the respondent-landlord on the basis of rent agreement dated 9.3.2011 is incorrect as the said rent agreement is a forged and fabricated document and thus, the order of the Rent Controller whereby provisional rent has been assessed, is liable to be set aside.
5. The question "whether the petitioner has taken the demised premises at monthly rent of ` 5,000/-"or ` 11,000/- per month" is the question which can be determined only after leading evidence by the parties and in view thereof, it is not possible to interfere in the impugned order, at this stage, on the basis of the argument raised to the effect that alleged agreement is the result of fraud.
6. Moreover, the aforesaid issue regarding arrears of rent is still pending before the Rent Controller and the parties are at liberty to raise all just objections before the said Authority in accordance with law. At this stage, no prejudice is going to be caused to the tenant even in case later on it is found that the rate of rent was less than the rent claimed, as in that eventuality, the tenant-petitioner would be entitled to adjust the excess amount for the future rent payable by her.
7. Counsel for the petitioner has argued before this Court that no time is left to arrange the money for making compliance of the impugned order and therefore, time be extended. However, it may be noticed that the impugned order was passed on 8.8.2013 whereby the petitioner was directed to make the payment of tender on 16.9.2013 but the petitioner has chosen to file the instant revision petition only on 13.9.2013 i.e. the last working day prior to the date fixed for making the tender before the Rent Controller. The petitioner has taken calculated risk and thus, cannot be granted any relief in this regard. Dismissed.
