Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 260 (PNJ)

Harbans Singh v. Chetan Dass

2003-02-12

N.K.SUD

body2003
Judgment N.K.Sud, J. 1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, Patiala dated 29.1.1998 granting sanction for proceeding against him under Section 19(3)(a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the Act). He has been held guilty of contravening the provisions of Section 9(2) of the Act and as such held liable to be punished under Section 19 thereof. 2. The petitioner is the landlord of Shop No. 85553/5-A in Gurbux Colony, Patiala which has been let out to the respondent. He filed an ejectment petition No. 11 of 1986 on 6.2.1986 on the grounds of non-payment of rent as also of non-payment of enhanced house-tax. The tenant-respondent tendered the arrears of rent and house-tax as claimed by the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner withdrew the ejectment application. Thereafter respondent-tenant filed the present application under Section 19 of the Act seeking sanction of the Rent Controller to file a complaint against the petitioner-landlord on the ground of contravention of the provisions of the Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Rent Controller has wrongly held that the petitioner had contravened the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Act. He points out that it stands proved that after the commencement of the Act, house-tax of the demised premises had in fact been increased from Rs. 777.60 to Rs. 1441.80. The petitioner has also placed on record a copy of the notice served on the tenant as Exhibit RW-3/A and postal receipt Exhibit RW-3/B intimating the tenant about the increase in house-tax and claiming corresponding increase in rent. The Advocate, who had sent the notice, was also examined. According to him, the Rent Controller has brushed aside this documentary evidence on mere surmises. There was no basis whatsoever for him to hold that the legal notice as also the postal receipt were forged. He further contends that the observation of the Rent Controller that since the house-tax had already been levied before the commencement of the Act, any increase therein did not entitle the landlord to recover the same from the tenant was contrary to the clear provisions of Section 9(1) of the Act. The learned counsel also contends that the Rent Controller has made out a totally new case for the petitioner beyond his pleadings. The learned counsel also contends that the Rent Controller has made out a totally new case for the petitioner beyond his pleadings. In this behalf he has referred to the petition filed by the respondent in which there was no mention about any non receipt of notice. He has also drawn my attention to the written statement filed by the petitioner in which it had specifically been averred that a notice had been sent to the respondent-tenant intimating about the enhancement in the house-tax and the corresponding recovery thereof from him. This averment in the written statement had not been controverted by the respondent. The Counsel contends that the order of the Rent Controller cannot be sustained on this ground also. 4. Mr. R.K. Aggarwal appearing on behalf of the respondent has merely supported the order of the Rent Controller without specifically meeting the contentions raised by the Counsel for the petitioner. 5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material on record. It has been correctly pointed out that there was no basis whatsoever for the Rent Controller to hold that the postal receipt was a forged document. He has not referred to any material on record to justify this finding. The postal receipt is a record of a Govt. agency and could not have been brushed aside so lightly. In fact it gives rise to a presumption of letter having been delivered to the addressee. It is also borne out from the record that the tenant had not even controverted the averment in the written statement about the notice having been sent to him. The Rent Controller was also not right in holding that since house-tax had already been levied prior to the commencement of the. Act, the landlord could not claim additional house-tax from the tenant in the event of its subsequent enhancement. The Rent Controller was also not right in holding that since house-tax had already been levied prior to the commencement of the. Act, the landlord could not claim additional house-tax from the tenant in the event of its subsequent enhancement. This finding is contrary to the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 9 which reads as under:- "Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act a landlord shall be entitled to increase the rent of building or rented land if after the commencement of this Act a fresh rate, cess or tax is levied in respect of the building or rented land by any local authority, or if there is an increase in the amount of such a rate, cess or tax being levied at the commencement of the Act: Provided that the increase in rent shall not exceed the amount of any such rate, cess or tax or the amount of the increase in such rate, cess or tax, as the case may be." 6. A perusal of the above said provision shows that it duly provides for recovery even in cases where an increase in the amount of such a rate, cess or tax being levied at the commencement of the Act is involved. 7. In view of the above, I am satisfied that the findings of the Rent Controller that the petitioner is guilty of contravening the provisions of Section 9(2) of the Act and, therefore, liable to be punished under Section 19 of the Act, deserve to be reversed. 8. Accordingly civil revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.01.1988 is set aside. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.