IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Alka Sarin, J.
Raj Kumar - Petitioner - Appellant
Versus
Balbir Kaur & Ors. - Respondents - Respondent
CR-6037 of 2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 04-01-2023
Rent Control - Provisional Rent Assessment - The court upheld the provisional assessment of rent with a modification regarding the rate, emphasizing 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.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed a petition for ejectment of the tenant due to arrears of rent. The tenant claimed to have paid rent but had no receipts. The court upheld the provisional rent assessment and dismissed the tenant's revision petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the authorities below and dismissed the revision petition, stating that any amount found to have been paid in excess would be directed to be refunded by the Rent Controller.
Issues: The issues revolved around the assessment of provisional rent, the tenant's claim of having paid rent without receipts, and the legality of the orders passed by the authorities below.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized 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.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.
ALKA SARIN, J.
1. The present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 06.09.2022 passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana and order dated 21.11.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana affirming the order passed by the Rent Controller with a slight modification.
2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the landlord-respondents filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for ejectment of the tenant-petitioner from the property in dispute i.e. one shop bearing No.1 built on the ground floor as described in the petition in detail on the ground of arrears of rent. The relationship of landlord and tenant was not denied and vide the impugned order dated 06.09.2022 the provisional rent was assessed. Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was preferred by the tenant-petitioner which was disposed off vide order dated 21.11.2022 wherein the provisional assessment of rent was upheld with a modification regarding the rate. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present revision petition has been filed by the tenant-petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner would contend that the rent stood paid upto February 2021 @ Rs.300/- per month and that the same has not been taken into account while assessing the provisional rent.
4. Heard.
5. In the present case, though a stand was taken by the tenant-petitioner that the rent stood paid upto February 2021 @ Rs.300/- per month, however, it was also admitted that there were no receipts qua the said rent.
6. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan & Ors. vs. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation & Ors. [(2002) 5 SCC 440] has held as under :
1. In Section 13(2)(i) proviso, the words ‘assessed by the Controller’ qualify not merely the words ‘the cost of application’ but the entire preceding part of the sentence i.e. ‘the arrears of rent and interest at six per cent per annum on such arrears together with the cost of application’.
2. The proviso to Section 13(2)(i) of East Punjab Urban Restriction Act, 1949 casts an obligation on the Controller to make an assessment of (i) arrears of rent, (ii) the interest on such arrears, and (iii) the cost of application and then quantify by way of an interim or provisional order the amount which the tenant must pay or tender on the ‘first date of hearing’ after the passing of such order of ‘assessment’ by the Controller so as to satisfy the requirement of the proviso.
3. Of necessity, ‘the date of first hearing of the application’ would mean the date falling after the date of such order by Controller.
4. On the failure of the tenant to comply, nothing remains to be done and an order for eviction shall follow. If the tenant makes compliance, the inquiry shall continue for finally adjudicating upon the dispute as to the arrears of rent in the light of the contending pleas raised by the landlord and the tenant before the Controller.
5. If the final adjudication by the Controller be at variance with his interim or provisional order passed under the proviso, one of the following two orders may be made depending on the facts situation of a given case. If the amount deposited by the tenant is found to be in excess, the Controller may direct a refund. If on the other hand, the amount deposited by the tenant is found to be short or deficient, the Controller may pass a conditional order directing tenant to place the landlord in possession of the premises by giving a reasonable time to the tenant for paying or tendering the deficit amount, failing which alone he shall be liable to be evicted. Compliance shall save him from eviction.
6. While exercising discretion for affording the tenant an opportunity of making good the deficit, one of the relevant factors to be taken into consideration by the Controller would be, whether the tenant has paid or tendered with substantial regularity the rent falling due
Rakesh Wadhawan & Ors. vs. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation & Ors.
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 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 tenant is obligated to make timely payments of arrears of rent as determined by the Rent Controller/Appellate Authority, and failure to do so can lead to eviction.
Non-compliance with the provisional rent assessment under Section 13(2)(i) of the Haryana Rent Act justified the tenant's ejectment, as per the interpretation of the law laid down by the Supreme Cour....
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.