Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 606 (PNJ)

Shri Sai Enterprises v. Gallant Arcade

2013-05-08

Jaswant Singh

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. Jaswant Singh, J.: - Petitioner(tenant) is in revision under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 03.01.2013 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh whereby the learned Rent Controller has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner(tenant) for framing of issues and not to assess the provisional rent at this stage. 2. As per averments of the application it was stated by the petitioner(tenant) that since relationship of landlord and tenant has been denied by the tenant therefore, as per the requirement of law, rent should not be assessed at this stage. 3. However, upon notice the respondent(landlord) stated that earlier a suit was filed for permanent injunction between the parties, whereby relationship of landlord and tenant has been admitted by the petitioner(tenant). It was further averred in the reply to the application that the tenant is in huge arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.7 lacs per month with effect from 08.03.2011 and in order to avoid payment of huge amount at this stage, the relationship has been denied in the present petition. 4. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh dismissed the application vide impugned order dated 03.01.2013. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner(tenant) and have gone through the case file carefully with his able assistance. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner(tenant) has argued that the learned Rent Controller has committed grave illegality by assessing the provisional rent at this stage, without taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner(tenant) has categorically denied the existence of any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and thus, there is no privity of contract between the parties. Hence, learned Rent Controller should not assess the rent at this stage and the said question should be left open to be decided by the Rent Controller after framing of issues and after taking into consideration entire evidence. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the petitioner(tenant) has relied upon 2003(1) RCR (Rent) 735 Ramanand Shastri Vs. Gian Singh. 7. After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner(tenant) and perusing the paper book, this Court is of the considered view that the present petition is devoid of any merit and the same deserves to be dismissed out rightly. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the petitioner(tenant) has relied upon 2003(1) RCR (Rent) 735 Ramanand Shastri Vs. Gian Singh. 7. After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner(tenant) and perusing the paper book, this Court is of the considered view that the present petition is devoid of any merit and the same deserves to be dismissed out rightly. In the present case, the facts speak for themselves and show the mala fide intention on part of the petitioner(tenant) who, in order to avoid its liability to pay the huge arrears of rent and remain in occupation of the property without payment of future rent as well, has taken a false plea of their being no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The respondent(landlord) had placed on record the copy of the suit titled as Sai Enterprises Vs. Gallant Arcade in which the present petitioner has categorically admitted execution of a rent agreement between the parties and in that suit the present petitioner(tenant) had sought permanent injunction for restraining the respondent(landlord) from interfering in its peaceful possession over the demise premises. Thus, when once the tenancy is admitted between the parties, the petitioner(tenant) cannot be allowed subsequently to create a camouflage and avoid payment of provisional rent by denying the capacity of the landlord for any reason whatsoever. If there is any objection regarding the competency of the person letting out the property on behalf of the company is concerned, the said question is always open for determination during the trial and if ultimately the tenant succeeds, then obviously he can get the amount recovered by taking recourse to appropriate remedy. Judgment that has been relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is clearly distinguishable on facts and does not deal with the issue which has come up for consideration before this Court because in the present case, in another suit the petitioner(tenant) has clearly admitted regarding execution of a rent note between the parties and consequently, admitted the initiation of tenancy between them. 8. In view of the above, no illegality or infirmity can be found in the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh and the same is hereby upheld and consequently the present revision petition is hereby dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————