CR No.6297 of 2007

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CR No.6297 of 2007

Date of Decision: 6.12.2007

Anil Kumar

..Petitioner

Vs.

Smt.Sneh Jain

..Respondent

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma

Present:

Mr.Anurag Jain, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral)

Present revision petition has been filed against the order passed

by the learned Rent Controller assessing provisional rent payable by the

petitioner w.e.f. 1.7.2003 to March, 2006 at the rate of Rs.2500/-.

For assessing the provisional rent the learned Rent Controller

has placed reliance on the agreement/rent note executed between the parties

vide which the rate of rent agreed was Rs.2500/- per month. Though the

petitioner denied the rent note which was placed on record by the

CR No.6297 of 2007

2

respondent-landlord. However, the learned Rent Controller has relied upon

the said document by comparing the signatures of the petitioner on his

written statement as well as power of attorney thereby coming to the

conclusion that this was prima facie a valid document for the purpose of

assessing the provisional rent. The document relied upon by the petitioner

i.e. the income tax return submitted by him as well as document showing

that the rate of rent of adjoining shop have been disbelieved by the learned

trial court on the ground that that were self serving documents prepared by

the petitioner in which the respondent landlord has no role to play. The

learned Rent Controller did not rely on the order of the learned Rent

Controller qua the other shops in which the rate of rent assessed was

Rs.1000/- per month.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order

passed by the learned Rent Controller, firstly on the ground that in the

agreement/rent note it has been mentioned that if tenant would be willing to

continue after the period of 5 years in that event the rate of rent would be

increased to Rs.5000/- per month. Learned counsel for the petitioner

contends that the rent petition is also based on the said pleadings, claiming

that rent has to be increased from Rs.2500/- to Rs.5000/- per month in case

the tenancy is to continue beyond 5 years.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner,

therefore, is that the said document being compulsorily registrable could not

be read in evidence for want of registration.

This plea of the petitioner cannot be accepted. The reading of

CR No.6297 of 2007

3

the document shows that it was a rent note regarding monthly tenancy

between the parties. One of the stipulations contained in rent note was that

there would be an increase in rent after the expiry of period of 5 years. The

rent note no where authorise the parties to continue with the tenancy for a

minimum period of 5 years . The rent note is not compulsorily registrable

as was sought to be pleaded. Even otherwise, the document placed on record

can be seen for collateral purposes, as the matter in issue is not regarding

continuation of tenancy for five years, but only to assess provisional rent.

Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the

judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anthony Vs. K.C.Ittoop

& Sons and others (2000) 6 Supreme Court Cases 394, wherein it has

been laid that where the lease deed is intended to be operative for 5 years it

was required to be registered and unless it was registered the same could

not be read in evidence.

The cited judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present

case as the document relied upon by the petitioner is not the lease deed for

a period of 5 years as already noticed. The document in the present case is

rent note regarding monthly tenancy.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the

learned Rent Controller was in error in not relying upon the income tax

returns produced by the petitioner as well as order passed by the learned

Rent Contro