Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 88 (PNJ)

Sanjeev v. Ajay Mehra

2020-01-09

ALKA SARIN

body2020
JUDGMENT Alka Sarin, J. - The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 16.11.2018 passed by the Rent Controller, Amritsar, and the order dated 02.01.2019 passed by the Appellate Authority, Amritsar. The petitioner herein has challenged the order of provisional assessment of rent which has been made by the Rent Controller, Amritsar. 2. A brief matrix of the facts relevant for adjudicating the lis in the present revision petition is that the respondent landlord had filed a petition stating therein that the demised premises consisted of two rooms, one toilet, one kitchen, lawn and store on the ground floor and two rooms, kitchen, toilet, terrace/balcony on the first floor, formed part of Kothi No.28, Green Avenue, Amritsar. It was further stated that the tenant was inducted in the year 2004 for eleven months at a monthly rent of Rs.5000/. Thereafter, with the mutual consent of the parties, the rate of rent was enhanced in the year 2010 to Rs.10,000/- per month and in the year 2012 to Rs.14,000/- per month. The case of respondent-landlord further was that the petitioner-tenant had neither paid nor tendered the arrears of rent with effect from August, 2012, at the rate of Rs.14,000/- per month till that date and that the petitioner-tenant had also failed to pay house-tax, electricity charges and water charges despite repeated requests. The stand taken by the petitioner-tenant was that the rate of rent was Rs.5,000/- per month since his induction in the demised premises. He further took a stand that the rent at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month already stood paid till February, 2018. 3. After considering the contentions of both the parties, the Rent Controller, vide order dated 16.11.2018, assessed the provisional rent and directed the tenant-petitioner to deposit rent with effect from 01.03.2018 to 30.11.2018 at the rate of Rs.14,000/- per month along with interest on such amount of Rs.3150/- and costs of Rs.3,000/- totalling Rs.1,32,150/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner-tenant challenged the order before the appellate authority. The appellate authority was of the view that the provisional rent has rightly been assessed and that the same was only provisional in nature and subject to final assessment. The petitioner-tenant still aggrieved by the orders passed by the authorities below has filed the present revision petition challenging both the orders passed dated 02.01.2019 and 16.11.2018. 4. The appellate authority was of the view that the provisional rent has rightly been assessed and that the same was only provisional in nature and subject to final assessment. The petitioner-tenant still aggrieved by the orders passed by the authorities below has filed the present revision petition challenging both the orders passed dated 02.01.2019 and 16.11.2018. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and am of the considered view that there is no error apparent in the orders passed by the Rent Controller while assessing the provisional rent, which has been upheld by the appellate authority. 5. The Rent Controller has on I y assessed the provisional rent. As per the dictum of the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan vs. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, reported as 2002(2) PLR 370 , the tenant must comply with the order of assessment unless it is shown that such an order would result into manifest injustice to the tenant. An order of provisional assessment can be challenged only in very exceptional cases, where the same causes manifest injustice to the tenant. 6. A perusal of the orders passed by the authorities below reveals that the assessment has been made by the Rent Controller while balancing the rival contentions of both the parties. It was contented by the landlord-respondent that the rent was due from the year 2012 at the rate of Rs.14,000/- per month. However, the case set up by the tenant was that rent up to February, 2018, had been paid and that the rate of rent was Rs.5,000/- per month. It has been noticed by the Rent Controller in the impugned order that neither party had placed on record the rent receipts or any other documents to show the arrears of rent and the period of rent. Keeping that in view, he has simply balanced the rival contentions and has taken the period as stated by the tenant and assessed the provisional rent from 01.03.2018 to 30.11.2018, however, the rate of rent has been taken as claimed by the respondent-landlord at Rs.14,000/- per month. The provisional rent which has been assessed by the Rent Controller is always subject to the final assessment and, if any amount is found to have been paid in excess, the same can always be adjusted. The provisional rent which has been assessed by the Rent Controller is always subject to the final assessment and, if any amount is found to have been paid in excess, the same can always be adjusted. That being so, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the orders passed by the authorities below. Needless to say that any observation made by the authorities below is only a prima facie view which has been expressed and that the same will have no bearing on the final order, which will be passed at the time of the decision of the case in accordance with law after hearing the parties. 7. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition. The same is dismissed.