The tenant's conduct amounted to misuse, and failure to pay provisional rent led to the orders of eviction being upheld.

JUDGMENT

G.S. Sandhawalia, J. - The present judgment shall dispose of two Civil Revisions bearing CR-3167 & 3170-2016, since they are based on identical facts and between the same parties.

2. The premises in question is a shop and a godown which were rented out and eviction has been ordered on 11.05.2015 on account of failure of the tenant to deposit the provisional rent as assessed by the Rent Controller, Khanna, for the premises. The same has also been upheld in appeal by the Appellate Authority on 05.04.2016. Resultantly the petitioner-tenant, being aggrieved against the said orders of eviction, is before this Court in a revision petition filed under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has, accordingly, submitted that once the relationship of landlord-tenant was disputed inter se the parties, no provisional rent was liable to be assessed and the eviction order, thus, was not justified. It is, accordingly, submitted that an issue should have been framed on that account and thereafter, at the time of final disposal, the Rent Controller could have come to the finding that there was a relationship, as such and to order eviction, thereafter. Reliance has been placed upto the judgment passed in CR-2255-2009 titled M/s Chopra Jewellers Vs. Rajendr Pal Gupta, decided on 16.09.2009, wherein this Court had set aside the order whereby provisional rent had been assessed and directions had been issued to frame specific issues as to whether there existed a relationship as such.

4. Counsel for the respondent-landlady, on the other hand, submitted that the mala fides of the tenant are apparent as he has not denied that he was a tenant in the premises but contended that the relationship was with the son of the landlady, namely, Amrinder Singh Walia and it was pleaded that it was an oral tenancy. It was further submitted that in the present case, there was a rent note dated 01.08.2011 between the parties and thus, in the absence of any other proof, the Rent Controller was justified in assessing the provisional rent by noticing the said fact that prima facie there was nothing to show that the rent note was forged and fabricated, rather it had a clause of enhancement. It was, thus, contended that the said order assessing the provisional rent dated 11.05.2015 (Annexure R-1) had been challenged before the Appellate Authority and the appeal had been dismissed being not maintainable and therefore, the said order having become final, the petitioner, as such, could not challenge the consequential order of ejectment. It is further contended that even a Civil Suit had been filed against the son of the landlady restraining him from taking possession of the premises which had been dismissed wherein it was admitted that there existed relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties and therefore, the tenant could not be permitted to blow hot and cold. Reliance was placed upon the findings of the Appellate Authority which castigated the conduct of the petitioner and that the landlady had purposely not been impleaded in the suit for permanent injunction and thus, it had also dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner seeking the relief of permanent injunction.

5. After hearing the arguments of counsels for the parties and perusing the record, this Court is of the opinion that it is a classic case of misuse by the tenant. He cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold at the same time and cannot continue to occupy the premises without payment of rent by denying the relationship of landlord-tenant. For coming to the said conclusion, few facts would necessarily have to be taken into consideration.

6. The petitions for eviction were filed on 26.04.2014 from the two premises in question which are a shop and a godown, on the ground of non-payment of rent from 01.08.2013 which was stated to be of Rs.4410/- per month in one case and Rs.3197.50 in the other case. The petitioner-tenant denied the relationship