Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1124 (PNJ)

Dilpreet Singh Juneja v. Dhirender Gupta

2009-07-13

SURYA KANT

body2009
Judgment Surya Kant, J. 1. Notice of motion. 2. Mr. Kunal Malwani, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-landlord. 3. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the main case is taken up for final disposal. 4. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 29.5.2009 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh whereby the petitioner-tenants have been directed to tender provisional rent @ Rs. 6600/- per month with effect from 1.4.1997 along with interest @ 6% per annum, after adjusting the rent tendered by them @ Rs. 4880/- per month with effect from 1.4.1997 to 31.1.2006. 5. Suffice to note here that the respondent-landlord has filed an eviction petition against the petitioners, inter-alia, on the ground of nonpayment of rent and personal necessity. During the pendency of the eviction petition, the Rent Controller has assessed the provisional rent payable by the petitioner- tenants, after relying upon an alleged un-registered lease deed executed between the parties, and has assessed the provisional rent @ Rs. 6600/- per month. On the other hand, the petitioner-tenants assert that the monthly rent is Rs. 4800/- per month, which has been tendered by them in the previous eviction petitions filed by respondent-landlord. The counsel for the respondent-landlord, however, points out that the same was accepted under protest. 6. Be that as it may, the question as to whether the agreed rent of the premises is Rs. 6600/- or Rs. 4800/- per month, is a question of fact which shall be gone into and decided by the Rent Controller at an appropriate stage. The question is as to what should be the provisional rent to be payable by the petitioner-tenants during the pendency of the eviction petition ? Since the Rent Controller has assessed the provisional rent after taking into consideration the documents allegedly executed between the parties, though prima facie inadmissible in evidence, no case to interfere with by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction is made out, more so when the arrears of rent at the lower rate were previously accepted by the respondent- landlord under protest only. At the same time, there was no occasion for the Rent Controller to direct the petitioner-tenants to pay the provisional rent with effect from 1.4.1997 as the petitioner-tenants have already tendered the rent @ Rs. 4800/- per month upto 31.1.2006. At the same time, there was no occasion for the Rent Controller to direct the petitioner-tenants to pay the provisional rent with effect from 1.4.1997 as the petitioner-tenants have already tendered the rent @ Rs. 4800/- per month upto 31.1.2006. The impugned order is accordingly modified and it is directed that the petitioner shall be liable to pay provisional rent @ Rs. 6600/- per month with effect from 1.2.2006. The parties shall tender or accept the provisional rent at the aforesaid rate without prejudice to their legal rights. It is made clear that if it is held that the petitioner-tenants have made any excess payment, the same shall be liable to be adjusted against the future rent. Disposed of.