138 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-6338-2025 (O&M)

DECIDED ON:19.01.2026 M/S NEERA INDUSTRIES AND ANOTHER …..PETITIONERS VERSUS MEENA KHANNA .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL.

Present: Ms. Molly Tarunima Tagore, Advocate for the petitioners (through Video Conference).

Mr. Umesh Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent.

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)

1. The instant petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails the order dated 27.05.2025 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Appellate Authority, Amritsar vide which the order dated 02.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Rent Controller, Amritsar was set aside and a direction was given to the Court of Rent Controller, Amritsar to assess the provisional rent by taking into account enhancement in rent to be 5% over the previous year’s rent and not over the basic rate of rent.

2. The respondent/landlord (Meena Khanna) instituted a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “The Rent Act”) for eviction of the petitioners/tenants from the demised premises (fully described in the eviction petition) situated at East Mohan Nagar, Amritsar, on the grounds of non-payment of rent and personal necessity. Insofar as the rent is concerned, it was averred that a rent note dated 24.04.2000 had been executed and a condition was incorporated that the rate of rent would be increased by 5% after the expiry of every one year. It was averred that the rent at the time of filing of the eviction petition was Rs.16,717/-. It was claimed that less rent had been deposited and further w.e.f. 24.04.2005, rent had not been paid.

3. The eviction petition was opposed by way of a written statement (Annexure P-5), wherein, the relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted, but other averments were denied. It was averred that the rate of rent was to be increased by 5% on the basic amount after every one year.

4. Vide order dated 02.05.2025 (Anneuxre P-1) the Court of Rent Controller, Amritsar assessed the provisional rent, while taking the increase of

5% on the basic amount.

5. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was instituted by the respondent/landlord, which was allowed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 27.05.2025. Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioners/tenants have instituted the present revision petition.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners/tenants has strenuously urged that the Appellate Authority has erred in directing the Rent Controller to make a fresh assessment of the provisional rent by taking the increase in rent to be 5% on the rent of every year rather than taking the increase to be 5% on the basic rent. She submits that evidence is yet to be led and, under the circumstances, there was no occasion for the Appellate Authority to have given such a direction. Learned counsel has further submitted that all this while, the respondent/landlord had been accepting the rent by taking the increase to be 5% on the basic rent and suddenly, he turned around and instituted the eviction petition by claiming that the increase was 5% per year on the rent of the previous year. Learned counsel submits that since evidence is yet to be led, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority, Amritsar is liable to be set aside.

8. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent/landlord has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order. While referring to the rent note (Annexure P-3) and the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority, learned counsel submits that from nowhere does it transpire that the increase of 5% was on the basic rent and it is a presumption, which has been drawn by the tenants themselves in the written statement. Learned counsel submits that said assertion had also been controverted in the replication. Learned counsel submits that in any case, it is still the assessment of provisional rent only