Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Alka Sarin, J.
Satpal Jindal - Appellant
Versus
Sunil Gupta - Respondent
CR-3360-2021 (O&M)
Decided On : 10-01-2022
Rent Control - Provisional Rent Assessment - East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Order 15 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - [CM-34-CII-2022] - [CR-3360-2021] - [East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Order 15 Rule 5 of CPC] - The court assessed the provisional rent of the tenanted premises at `1,20,000/- per month based on the material before it and the pleadings of the parties. The argument that the rent had been reduced to `60,000/- per month due to the Covid-19 Pandemic was not supported by any material on the record and was rejected. The court referred to the judgment of Rakesh Wadhawan vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation & Ors. [2002(5) SCC 440] which held that the Rent Controller has to make a provisional assessment, subject to final adjudication, and if the final adjudication is at variance with the provisional assessment, the excess amount deposited by the tenant can be directed to be refunded. The present revision petition was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent-landlord filed a petition for ejectment of the petitioner-tenant on the ground of arrears of rent. The Rent Controller assessed the provisional rent of the tenanted premises at `1,20,000/- per month, which was upheld by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner-tenant claimed that the rent had been reduced to `60,000/- per month due to the Covid-19 Pandemic and that he was ready to pay the reduced rent. The court found that the claim was not supported by any material on the record.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the authorities below and dismissed the revision petition.
Issues: The main issue was the assessment of the provisional rent of the tenanted premises and the claim of the petitioner-tenant that the rent had been reduced to `60,000/- per month due to the Covid-19 Pandemic.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 and Order 15 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to assess the provisional rent. The court also referred to the judgment of Rakesh Wadhawan vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation & Ors. [2002(5) SCC 440] which established the process of provisional assessment by the Rent Controller, subject to final adjudication, and the possibility of refunding the excess amount deposited by the tenant if the final adjudication is at variance with the provisional assessment.
Final Decision: The present revision petition was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Alka Sarin, J. - Taken up through video conferencing.
CM-34-CII-2022
This is an application for placing on record the cheques issued by the petitioner on different dates.
Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions.
CM stands disposed off.
CR-3360-2021
2. The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 01.10.2021 passed by the Rent Controller assessing the provisional rent of the tenanted premises at `1,20,000/- per month and against the order dated 24.11.2021 passed by the Appellate Authority upholding the said provisional rent assessed by the Rent Controller.
3. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the respondent-landlord, who is a co-owner of the tenanted premises, filed a petition for ejectment of the petitioner-tenant on the ground of arrears of rent. It is pleaded by the respondent-landlord that earlier the petitioner- tenant had been paying rent @ `1,20,000/- per month, however he stopped making the payment of rent from 01.04.2020 to 30.06.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner-tenant again defaulted in making the payment of rent from 01.12.2020 till the filing of the ejectment petition. The petitioner-tenant took a stand that the rent had been reduced by the respondent-landlord to `60,000/- per month due to the situation created by the Covid-19 Pandemic and that he was ready to pay the rent @ `60,000/- per month. Vide order dated 01.10.2021 the Rent Controller, after hearing the counsel for both the parties and after perusing the documents on the record, assessed the provisional rent of the tenanted premises at `1,20,000/- per month.
4. Accordingly, `15,60,000/- was assessed as arrears, `54,600/- as interest and `2000/- as costs. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Rent Controller, the petitioner-tenant approached the Appellate Authority which dismissed his appeal vide order dated 24.11.2021. Hence the present revision petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant would contend that till March 2020 the monthly rate of rent was `1,20,000/- and in support thereof copies of some of cheques issued by the tenant-petitioner in the years 2019 and 2020 have been appended as Annexure P-6 with CM-34-CII-2022. It is further the contention that in April 2020, due to the situation created by the Covid-19 Pandemic, it was orally agreed between the parties that the monthly rent of the tenanted premises would be reduced to `60,000/- and that an amount of `1,20,000/- would be paid by the petitioner-tenant every alternate month. In support of this contention copies of some cheques issued by the tenant-petitioner in the years 2020 and 2021 have been appended as Annexures P-1 to P-5 with the revision petition. Further, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant is that there is no mechanism provided in either the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Punjab Rent Act') or in the judgments passed by the Supreme Court for the Rent Controller to assess the provisional rent and hence reference would have to be made to Order 15 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') and therefore it would only be the admitted rent as per the tenant which would be required to be deposited.
Heard.
6. In the present case, admittedly, the rate of rent of the tenanted premises was `1,20,000 per month. However, as per the averments made by the petitioner-tenant, this rate of rent was orally agreed and reduced to `60,000/- per month and that the said amount was being paid every alternate month by issuing a cheque for `1,20,000/- and hence it could be deduced that the rent had been decreased to `60,000/- per month. Learned counsel has relied upon the copies of the cheques (Annexures P-1 to P-5) to contend that since the amount was reduced to `60,000/- per month, cheques were issued by the petitioner-tenant every alternate month on 07.05.2020, 07.07.2020, 07.09.2020, 07.11.2020 and 07.01.2021.
7. Besides the oral submissions made by counsel
The main legal point established in the judgment is the process of provisional rent assessment by the Rent Controller, subject to final adjudication, and the possibility of refunding the excess amoun....
The obligation of the Rent Controller to make an assessment of the provisional rent and the possibility of refund if the final adjudication is at variance with the provisional order.
The failure of a tenant to comply with a Rent Controller's order for provisional rent assessment necessitates eviction, as the Controller has no jurisdiction to extend the payment period.
Compliance with provisional rent assessment under Section 13(2)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Restriction Act, 1949 and the ongoing inquiry by the Rent Controller to adjudicate the dispute.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
