The main legal point established in the judgment is that under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, the Rent Controller is obligated to make provisional assessment of arrears of rent and provide opportunities for the tenant to tender the same, unless the tenant denies the relationship of landlord and tenant.

SURINDER GUPTA, J.

1. This is revision against the concurrent orders of Rent Controller and Appellate Authority, Jalandhar under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 allowing the petition filed by respondent Indu Dhir seeking ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from the demised premises.

2. Respondent-landlord sought ejectment of the revision petitioner-tenant from the demised premises on the ground of non-payment of rent and her personal bona fide need. It was alleged that respondent-landlord purchased the building bearing No.B-IX/671 on the basis of three sale deeds as follows:-

(i) Chander Dev Dhir husband of respondent purchased 14 marlas including the demised premises vide two sale deeds dated 24.09.1974 and 18.10.1974.

(ii) Respondent purchased remaining 14 marlas of demised premises vide sale deed dated 22.10.2003.

3. Petitioner was tenant in the demised premises under the earlier owner at the rent of Rs. 600/- per month and thereafter, became tenant under the petitioner on the same terms. The rate of rent was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 1300/- per month. The petitioner-tenant denied the rate of rent and his tenancy under the respondent-landlord or their vendors. He alleged that he had taken the shop on rent from Swaran Lata Dhir on monthly rent of Rs. 600/- and had been paying the rent to her. It was also pleaded that shop in question was not part and parcel of building No.BIX/671.

4. Pleadings of the parties led to the framing of issues as follows:-

(1) Whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties? OPA

(2) Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent of the shop in question since 01.04.2009? OPA

(3) Whether the petitioner requires the shop in dispute for bonafide necessity and personal use? OPA

(4) Whether the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present petition? OPR

(5) Whether the present application for ejectment is not maintainable? OPR

(6) Whether the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present application? OPR

(7) Whether the petitioner has no cause of action to file the present application.? OPR

(8) Relief.

5. On appraisal of evidence on record, learned Rent Controller held that shop in question is part of the property of respondent-landlord and the plea of the respondent that he is tenant under her was held as duly proved. As the petitioner-tenant had denied his relationship of landlord and tenant with respondent-landlord, the petition was allowed.

6. Not satisfied, the petitioner-tenant filed appeal, which was also dismissed with the observation that petitioner-tenant has not been able to produce on file any cogent, convincing and reliable evidence that he was tenant under Swaran Lata Dhir.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant has argued that denial of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was not mala fide on the part of revision petitioner, as such, after recording the finding that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, learned Rent Controller was required to assess the provisional rent and give opportunity to the petitioner-tenant to pay the same instead of passing the order of ejectment. In support of his contention, he has relied on the observations of Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Raghubir Chand Mahajan vs. Indian Bank 2015 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 156.

8. In the case referred by learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant, the ejectment of tenant was ordered on the ground of short tender of rent and the tenant in that revision petition had relied on the observations of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Rakesh Wadhawan vs. M/s. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation 2002 (1) R.C.R. (Rent) 514, that provisional rent is to be assessed by the Rent Controller and in the event of finding about rate of rent being higher, tenant shall be provided with opportunity to pay the difference of rent within the period as fixed by the Rent Controller. Coordinate Bench of this Court took note of the contention of the tena