The Rent Controller has the jurisdiction to assess the actual rent of the demised premises and to direct the tenant to pay the arrears calculated on that basis, in order to meet the ends of justice.

JUDGMENT

Tribhuvan Dahiya, J. - This revision petition has been filed under Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, against the order of Rent Controller dated 20.07.2022, and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 03.09.2022.

2. The respondent-landlord filed ejectment petition against the petitioner-tenant with respect to demised shop No.1, Ground Floor, Main chowk, Basti Jodhewal, Ludhiana, inter alia on the ground of non-payment of rent and nuisance being caused in front of the shop by him. The ejectment petition was conditionally allowed with costs by the Rent Controller by directing the petitioner-tenant to pay arrears of rent along with interest amounting to Rs. 6,95,378/- (at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per month), failing which he was held liable to be evicted on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent.

3. The Rent Controller framed the following issues based on pleadings of the parties:

1. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 15.12.2016 @ Rs.30,000/- per month along with property tax, as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the respondent is source of nuisance, as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR

4. Whether the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands? If so, its effect? OPR

5. Relief.

4. While recording findings on Issue No.1, based on evidence led by the respondent-landlord, it was held by the Rent Controller that rent of the demised premises was Rs. 12,000/-. The findings were affirmed by the Appellate Authority by holding that the Rent Controller was required to decide rent on the basis of the evidence led, irrespective of the pleadings of the parties. Although it was pleaded by the respondent-landlord that rate of rent of the demised shop was Rs. 30,000/- per month, the same could not be established by him. However, by leading evidence he could duly prove that the shop adjoining the demised shop was fetching monthly rent of Rs. 12,000/. It was further observed that undisputedly the demised shop was situated in a commercial area at a prime location, wherein the petitioner-tenant is carrying on business of readymade garments. It could not be prima facie believed that it's rate of rent would only be Rs. 1100/- per month, especially when the adjoining shop, of a lessor area than the demised shop, with HDFC ATM installed in it, was fetching rent @ Rs. 12,000/- per month, as established by Exh.P1. There is no rent note between the parties as the tenancy is oral, therefore, actual rate of rent is not mentioned. It has been admitted by the petitioner-tenant in his cross examination that his father had purchased the adjoining shop also. It has not been denied by him that the adjoining shop is fetching rent of Rs. 12,000/- per month.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority committed an error of law in deciding the rate of rent of the demised shop. Issue no.1 is, whether the respondent is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 15.12.2016 @ Rs. 30,000/- per month. Whereas, while deciding the same, rent of the demised shop has been determined as Rs. 12,000/- per month which amounts to assessing fair rent. As per him, the only option with the Controller was, either to assess the rent at the rate of Rs. 1100/- per month, the rent paid by the tenant, or, at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per month, as claimed by the landlord. No rent in between these two figures, i.e., higher than Rs.1100/- and lesser than Rs.30,000/-, could have been assessed by the Controller which amount to fixation of fair rent. In the absence of any petition for determining fair rent having been filed by the respondent-landlord, it could not have been assessed. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed upon judgments of this Court in Dhani Ram (died) through LRs vs. Madan Lal, 2003(2) PLR 564; and Harnam Singh vs. Mohinder Singh, 1997(2) PLR 611.

6. The arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellant have no merit. A perus