Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 924 (PNJ)

Moti Ram v. Balwinder Kaur

2005-09-01

S.S.SARON

body2005
Judgment S.S.Saron, J. 1. Notice to CM. to the non-applicant (petitioner). 2. Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate, for the petitioner, accepts notice. 3. It is agreed between the counsel for the parties that in the light of the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, (2002-2)131 P.L.R. 370 (S.C.), this case is liable to be remanded to the Rent Controller, for provisional assessment of rent to be made. The Hon ble Supreme Court held that where the tenant raises a genuine dispute regarding rate of rent, quantum of rent etc. then in such a case it is obligatory on Rent Controller to make assessment of arrears of rent, interest on such arrears and cost of application and then quantify by way of an interim or provisional order the amount which the tenant must pay or tender on the "first date of hearing" after passing of such orders of "assessment" by the Controller so as to satisfy the requirement of the proviso. The "first date of hearing of the application" it was held would mean the date falling after the date of such order by the Rent Controller. On payment of provisional rent by tenant. Rent Controller will then finally adjudicate arrears of rent. If the final adjudication by the Controller is at variance with his interim or provisional order passed under the proviso, one of the following two orders may be made depending on the facts situation of a given case. If the amount deposited by the tenant is found to be in excess, the Controller may direct a refund. If, on the other hand, the amount deposited by the tenant is found to be short or deficient, the Controller may pass a conditional order directing the tenant to place the landlord in possession of the premises by giving a reasonable time to the tenant for paying or tendering the deficit amount, failing which alone he shall be liable to be evicted. Compliance with the order shall, however, save the tenant from eviction. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawans case (supra) has been reiterated by a three Judge Bench in the case of Vinocl Kumar v. Prem Lata, 2003(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 329. 4. Compliance with the order shall, however, save the tenant from eviction. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawans case (supra) has been reiterated by a three Judge Bench in the case of Vinocl Kumar v. Prem Lata, 2003(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 329. 4. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court and also the submissions of both the counsel, this case is remanded back to the Rent Controller for re-assessment of the rent which is in dispute in the case, in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawans case (supra). 5. Consequently, the impugned order dated 5.12.2000 passed by the Appellate Authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 and also that of the Rent Controller dated 7.11.1998 are set aside and the matter regarding tender of rent shall be reconsidered in the light of the aforementioned observations. Considering that the matter has been pending since long the Rent Controller, it is hoped, would take effective steps to consider and dispose of the application, as expeditiously as possible.