Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 484 (JK)

Tej Swaroop Abrol v. Vishwa Nath Kundal

2011-09-09

Hasnain Massodi

body2011
1. The parties to the instant Civil Revision are landlord and tenant. The respondent/landlord has let out ground floor of his residential house bearing No.237 situated at Old Janipur, Jammu to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 4,000/- according to the petitioner/tenant and Rs. 4,400/- as per the claim set up by the respondent/landlord. 2. The petitioner has filed an application under Section 27 of Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966 for a direction to the respondent to make repairs in the rented out premises and in alternative, to be permitted to make the repairs at the cost of the /respondent/landlord. The respondent/landlord in turn has filed an application for a direction to the petitioner/tenant to deposit the regular rent at the rate of Rs. 4,400/- per month and also to clear the arrears. The petitioner/tenant on the other hand has filed an application for fixation of "fair rent". The petitioner/tenant insists that the rent though fixed as Rs. 4,500/- per month was slashed down to Rs. 4,000/- per month after the petitioner/tenant vacated one of the rooms from the rented out premises. The petitioner/tenant further claims that the "fair rent" for the rented out premises in his estimation was Rs. 1,500/- per month and asked Rent Control/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu to fix the "fair rent". 3. The Rent Control/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu on 18th February, 2010 passed the following order; "Applicant has admitted that after Jan 2009 he has deposited Rs. 4500/- as rent on 28-01-2010. After calculation it has been found that applicant is in arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 43,500/-. He is directed to clear the arrears immediately. He shall also file an estimate of the repairs duly prepared by Asstt. Engineer of PWD with certificate of necessity." The petitioner/tenant is aggrieved of the order dated 18.02.2010 on the grounds detailed in the Revision Petition. It is insisted that the order impugned has been passed without jurisdiction and that the rent fixed by the parties is not "fair", and is much above the average monthly rentals of adjoining buildings. 4. Heard. Considered. 5. The order impugned is interim in nature and passed on the petitioner's application under Section 27 of Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966. The order does not conclude the proceedings. 4. Heard. Considered. 5. The order impugned is interim in nature and passed on the petitioner's application under Section 27 of Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966. The order does not conclude the proceedings. Had the order impugned been passed in favour of petitioner, it would not have finally disposed of the proceedings. The Civil Revision, in the above circumstances, is not maintainable in view of the amendment to Section 115 CPC incorporated by Amending Act of 2009. Needless to mention that in terms of amended Section 115 CPC, revision against the order made in a suit or other proceedings is maintainable only, in case, the order if passed in favour of the petitioner/tenant, would end the suit or other proceedings. 6. So viewed, the Civil Revision is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. However, its dismissal shall not stand in the way of petitioner to workout his remedy. 7. Dismissed along with connected CMP(s).