A contract for enhancement of rent must be in writing and must comply with the requirements of Article 299(1) of the Constitution of India.

N.K.Kapoor, J.

1. This landlords revision petition against the order of the order of the appellate authority whereby the order of the Rent Controller was reversed, thus dismissing the eviction application.

2. The petitioners sough eyiction of the respondents from the ground floor of SCO No. 315-316/35B Chandigarh, on the ground of non payment of rent. In response to the notice issued by the Court the respondents put in appearance and filed written statement contesting the various grounds of ejectment. The stand taken by the respondents was that they had never agreed for the enhancement of rent as regards payment of rent. They claimed that the rent had already been paid. The precise stand of the respondents, as given in para No. 3 of the written statement, is hereunder reproduced as reference to the same will be made in subsequent part of the judgment. Para No. 5 of the written statement reads as under:-

"No arrear of rent is due as the rate at which the rent is being pad to the plaintiff is already in excess as per the decision of the Coordination Committee constituted by the Govt. for the purpose. The rent from 13.1987 to 28.2,1989 has been paid to the petitioners by bank draft Nos. OL/A/29-513458 dated 3.11. 1988, OL/A/29-514188 dated 15.12.1988, TT/A/88-545119 dated 30.12.1988 TT/A/88-5464796 dated 31.3.1989 and TT/A/88-548457 dated 28.2.1989 through this Honble Court "

3. The case set up by the petitioners was that the respondents agreed to the enhancement of rent to the extent of 25% per annum and so the rate of rent was Rs. 4850/-per month. Since this amount had not been paid or tendered, the respondents are liable to be vacated.

4. The rent controller came to the conclusion that there has been an agreement between the parties with regard to the enhancement of rent and since the same has not been paid or tendered decided this issue in favour of the petitioners. Resultantly, the order of eviction was passed against the respondents. Before the appellate Authority the matter was once again examined on facts and law The appellate authority, however, came to the conclusion that no such valid contract came into existence as alleged by the petitioners and so held that the rent of the premises in dispute remained at Rs. 3850/- per months As regards the payment of rent, the appellate authority observed that rent had been paid upto February. 1987 before the petition was filed and from 1.3. 1987 to 30.11.1988 amounting to Rs. 81690/- was tendered on 15.12.1988 on which date costs of the petition was also assessed. The appellate authority, however, found that the assessed cost of Rs. 500/- and the interest on the amount due was not tendered or paid by the respondents. But all the same, it came to the conclusion that since rent payable under section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act was upto July, 1988, rent paid for the months of August, September, October and November, 1988 had not become due and this way a sum of Rs. 15560/- was tendered in excess by the respondent-tenants. This way costs of Rs. 500/- and the amount of interest can easily be adjusted towards this excess payment Accordingly, the order of the Rent Controller was set aside and appeal was accepted as prayed for.

5. The petitioners have challenged the order of the appellate authority whereby the order of the Rene Controller was reversed on the ground that the appellate authority has erred in not properly perusing the documentary evidence on record by which it is proved beyond any manner of doubt that a fresh contract came into being between the parties and the rent of the premises in dispute stood increased from Rs. 3890/- to Rs. 4850/-. The counsel in this regard referred to the correspondence between the parties i e Exhibit P-3, P-4 and P-5, Vide Exhibit P-3 dated 22.6.83, a letter written by Gurjeet Singh to the Director, Police Telecommunications, Punjab, he sought a reasonable increase of rent and thus demanded that at least 30% of the rent may be