IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

(121)

Date of Decision:-19.12.2025

OM PARKASH … Petitioner

Versus

ARVINDER SINGH ... Respondent

-.-

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL

Present: Mr. Dixit Garg, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

1. Petitioner filed this petition for setting aside the order dated 07.11.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Ludhiana whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the provisional assessment of rent by the

Rent Controller vide order dated 28.04.2022 has been dismissed.

2. Respondent-landlord filed an ejectment petition seeking ejectment of the petitioner from the demised premises on grounds specified in the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 and one of the grounds was that petitioner is in arrears of rent. Rent agreed was Rs.6,000/- per month and petitioner is in arrears of rent since October, 2016. Petitioner appeared and filed written reply taking a plea that rent was only Rs.2,200/- per month and that he is in possession of the premises since 1987 and respondent has paid rent of Rs.24,200/- for 11 months in the shape of cheques or cash on dated 23.08.2017 and 25.09.2017. Thereafter, the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 28.04.2022 assessed the provisional rent and a direction was given to the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.4,78,880/- as provisionally assessed rent along

with interest and cost.

3. An appeal was filed by the petitioner against the provisional assessment order. That appeal after hearing the petitioner was dismissed vide

impugned order dated 07.11.2025. Petitioner has filed this revision petition assailing the order on the grounds that Rent Controller while passing the impugned order has failed to consider the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Rakesh Wadhawan versus M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, 2002 (2) Rent Law Reporter 36, and that learned Rent Controller has committed gross illegality in assessing the rent as claimed by the landlord/respondent and ignored the basic purpose of the provisional assessment of the rent.

4. I have heard counsel for the petitioner at length.

5. The learned Appellate Authority has not found any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller while assessing the provisional rent. The findings of the learned Appellate Authority as contained in Para 4 of the impugned order is as under:

4.. After hearing the learned counsel from both the sides, this court is of the considered view that admittedly, a rent petition was filed by the petitioner/respondent on the grounds of non payment of rent with the averments that the demised premises was taken on rent by the father of respondent at the rate of Rs.2,200/- per month apart from the property tax and water supply charges in the year 1987 After than death of his father, respondent become tenant in the demised shop. The respondent was making the payment of rent at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month against proper receipts and thus rent stood paid upto September, 2016. As the respondent failed in making the payment of rent after September, 2016 and thus petitioner filed the rent petition. During the pending petition, on the basis of pleadings of parties, the then learned Rent Controller, Khanna assessed the rate of rent as Rs.6,000/- per month from October, 2016 till date. It is pertinent to mention here that it is an admission on the part of the appellant that his father has taken the shop in question on rent in the year 1987 at the rate of Rs.2,200/- per month. The rate of rent was increased from time to time. The appellant contended that he is a handicapped person and has no other source of income except that of the shop in question. The rate of rent has been contended by respondent/petitioner as Rs.6,000/- per month, but the appellant contended the same being Rs.2,200/- per month. As has been stated above, the learned Controller assessed the rate of rent as Rs.6,000/- per month since October, 2016. It is