IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.8704 of 2025 Date of decision: December 2^nd, 2025 Rakesh Kumar Mahajan and another ...Petitioners Versus Shakti Mahajan @ Shakti Gupta ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr. Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioners.

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 10.09.2025 vide which the Rent Controller has assessed the provisional rent and has directed the petitioners, who are tenants in the premises, to make payment of the amount assessed. Challenge is also to the order dated 15.11.2025 vide which the appeal filed by the petitioners (tenants) has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Amritsar, and the order dated

10.09.2025 has been upheld.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned orders deserve to be set aside on two grounds. It is submitted that the rent note dated 12.08.1999 is not a registered agreement and thus, the increase clause requiring the rent to be increased after a period of four years by 10% cannot be enforced against the petitioners. It is submitted that the ₹

admitted rent is 3,500/- per month which the petitioners are ready to pay. It is submitted that the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority, while assessing the provisional rent, have taken into consideration the 10% increase clause which is not permissible. It is submitted that the impugned orders be modified to the said extent and the petitioners be held not liable to pay the 10% increase.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:

3. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and has perused the paper book and finds that the present revision petition is meritless and deserves to be dismissed and the impugned orders are in accordance with law and deserve to be upheld for the reasons stated hereinafter.

4. The respondent had filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, for eviction of the present petitioners from the shop in question. It was the case of the respondent in the petition dated 05.08.2023 (Annexure P-2) that the erstwhile owner of the building was Gurinder Singh and he had let out the premises to the present ₹

petitioners at a monthly rent of 3,500/- and that subsequently a new rent note dated 12.08.1999 was executed between the present petitioners and said Gurinder Singh. It was further the case of the respondent that the respondent vide three registered sale deeds dated 17.07.2018, 23.07.2018 and 30.07.2018 had purchased the said building from Gurinder Singh and by operation of law had become the landlady and there was a relationship of landlady and tenants between the parties. It was further specifically stated that in the rent note dated 12.08.1999 there was a specific clause which required the rent to be increased to the extent of 10% per month after every four years. The eviction was sought on the grounds of arrears of rent as well as personal necessity.

5. The petitioners had filed the written statement, which has been annexed as Annexure P-3 and in the said written statement, the fact that the petitioners were tenants in the demised premises and that Gurinder Singh was the landlord was not disputed. Even the execution of the new rent note dated 12.08.1999 in favour of Gurinder Singh was not disputed. In paragraph 3 of the reply on merits, the petitioners had specifically stated that the petitioners were neither denying the ownership of the respondent herein nor were denying the relationship of landlady and tenants and were in fact were admitting the respondent to be the landlady. The relevant portion of paragraph 3 on merits is reproduced hereinbelow:

“However, it is made clear that the replying respondents are neither denying the ownership of the petitioner regarding the property in question nor the replying respondents are denying the relationship of landlord and tenant betw