The assessment of provisional rent should consider all relevant records and pleadings, and the failure to provide evidence to support a claim can result in the court setting aside the impugned order.

Gurmit Ram, J.

This revision petition is filed by the petitioner (landlord) against the order dated 26.5.2014 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana vide which the provisional rent qua the demised premises has been assessed.

2. Facts in brief are that the present petitioner has filed an ejectment petition seeking eviction of the tenants (respondents herein) from the demised premises which is now pending before the Rent Controller, Ludhiana. In the petition, it is mentioned that the demised premises was let out to the respondent No. 1 on a monthly rent of Rs. 7,000/- with a condition to increase the same @10% after every year. At present the rate of rent of the demised premises is stated to be Rs. 10,248/- per month, besides the house tax and electricity charges. The terms and conditions of the tenancy were reduced into writing vide an agreement dated 8.4.2008. The petitioner sought the ejectment of the respondents from the demised premises on the ground of non-payment of rent, subletting and ceased to occupy.

3. In the reply, both the respondents admitted the tenancy in question. It is also admitted by respondent No. 2 that terms and conditions of the tenancy were reduced into writing on dated 8.4.2008. Respondent No. 1 in reply has taken the plea that the alleged rent note is a forged and fabricated document. It is also his plea that rate of rent of demised premises is Rs. 1,000/- per month.

4. The learned Rent Controller after hearing learned counsel for both the parties assessed the provisional rent @ Rs. 1,000/- per month for the period from 1.1.2009 to 1.6.2014 vide the impugned order.

5. The petitioner-landlord feeling aggrieved from this order has come up in the instant revision petition, notice of which was given to the respondents.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have also gone through the record with their valuable assistance as available on the file.

7. As above discussed the tenancy is admitted by both the parties. It is also admitted by respondent No. 2 that the terms and conditions of the tenancy were also reduced into writing. Only respondent No. 1 in the reply had taken the plea that alleged rent note is forged and fabricated.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order is not tenable in the eyes of law because the learned Rent Controller did not assign any reason while passing the impugned order by ignoring the rent note as pleaded by the petitioner-landlord. It is further his contention that for the purpose of assessing the provisional rent, the learned Rent Controller is to take into consideration all the records as well as pleadings of both the parties which are relevant at that time to decide this matter. In support of his contention, he has referred to a case law of this Court as laid down in CR No. 2519 of 2013 titled as Sahil Bhola v. Ajay Kumar decided on 22.4.2013. In this case, the Rent Controller assessed the provisional rent as per rent note. Revision filed by the tenant in this regard was dismissed. Then he has also cited an another authority of this Court as laid down in Bal Mukand Aggarwal v. Sushma Mittal and others, 2015(1) RCR(Civil) 280 wherein in its para No. 14, it has been held that the Rent Controller cannot travel beyond the pleadings and documents produced on file by either party while assessing provisional rent. The Rent Controller may ignore any document or pleadings not relevant while assessing the provisional rent by giving reasons.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the provisional rent as assessed by the Rent Controller is correct and no interference in the impugned order is required to be made as per the law. Then it is also his contention that provisional rent as assessed by the learned Rent Controller vide the impugned order is merely an interim one and not the final. In support of his contention, he has referred to an authority as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in