SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 5299

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
MANDEEP PANNU, J
Rajesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Om Parkash – Respondent
CR-6490-2025 (O&M)



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Sandeep Arora

The Rent Controller's provisional rent assessment is validated when based on contractual stipulations, overriding tenant claims of informal agreements.

Headnote:Section 227 of the Constitution of India governs the revision petition challenging a Rent Controller's order on provisional rent assessment. The tenant contends regular payment of rent without arrears, yet the Rent Controller assesses rent based on fresh rent notes since the tenant failed to comply with stipulated periodic increases. The central issues are the tenant's compliance with rental agreements and valid assessment timelines. The Rent Controller's conclusions are upheld as justified, dismissing claims of excessive rent and affording the tenant avenues for future relief if necessary.

Table of Content
1. tenant’s compliance and payment history. (Para 1 , 2)

MANDEEP PANNU J.

1. The present civil revision petition has been filed by the tenant– petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar, whereby provisional rent was assessed at ₹4,25,962/- (inclusive of arrears, interest and costs) payable by the tenant.

Brief Facts

2. The case of the landlord before the Rent Controller was that the respondent–tenant took the demised shop on rent vide rent note dated 23.05.2008 at a monthly rent of ₹3,200/- with stipulation that the rent would be enhanced at the rate of 5% every year. The tenancy continued without interruption. Subsequently, a fresh rent note was executed on 01.04.2021 for a monthly rent of ₹6,000/-, effective for a period of 11 months, with a condition that the tenant TRIPTI SAINI would enhance the rent by 10% after expiry of each 11-month term. The landlord pleaded that though the tenant continued in possession, he had not complied with the stipulation of 10% annual increase and had been paying rent by enhancing it only at the rate of 5%. The landlord further claimed that arrears had accumulated since 2008 and sought assessment of provisional rent accordingly.

3. On the other hand, the tenant contended before the Rent Controller that there were no arrears of rent, that he had been regularly depositing rent, and even produced copy of cheque dated 15.02.2023 and statement of account to show consistent payment. It was his plea that assessment of arrears since 2008 was wholly misconceived and the petition for arrears was not maintainable.

Observations of the Rent Controller

4. The Rent Controller, after considering rival submissions, held that though the petitioner-landlord had claimed arrears from 2008, the same could not be taken into account for assessment of provisional rent because (i) had arrears not been cleared, landlord would not have executed fresh rent note on 01.04.2021; and (ii) landlord never took action for recovery of arrears from 2008 onwards.

Accordingly, arrears prior to 01.04.2021 were excluded.

5. However, taking into account the fresh rent note dated 01.04.2021 at ₹6,000/- per month with agreed 10% annual enhancement, the Rent Controller provisionally assessed rent payable from 01.04.2021 onwards at enhanced rates of ₹6,300/-, ₹6,615/-, ₹6,945/-, ₹7,639/- and ₹8,402/- at different periods up to August 2025. On this basis, total rent payable was calculated at ₹3,73,534/-, with further addition of ₹50,428/- as interest and ₹2,000/- as costs, totaling ₹4,25,962/-.

TRIPTI SAINI

6. Challenging the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner- tenant argued that the Rent Controller erred in assessing provisional rent at such enhanced figures without appreciating that the tenant had regularly paid rent and no arrears existed. The enhancement clause was never acted upon strictly and the tenant had been paying rent as per mutual understanding at 5% increase. The assessment is excessive, arbitrary and liable to be set aside.

Findings

7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record. The scope of interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 is extremely limited. Unless the order of the Rent Controller suffers from patent illegality or material irregularity, this Court would not re-appreciate facts or substitute its own assessment.

8. In the present case, the Rent Controller has carefully considered the pleadings and has rightly discarded the claim of arrears from 2008 onwards. The assessment has been made only from 01.04.2021, the date of fresh rent note admittedly executed by the tenant, on the agreed rent of ₹6,000/- with 10% annual increase. The tenant himself admits execution of the fresh rent note. Once such contractual stipulation existed, the Rent Controller was fully justified in calculating provisional rent on that basis.

9. The tenant’s ple

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top