Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1143 (PNJ)

Hitesh Kumar v. Sat Pal

2024-08-09

HARKESH MANUJA

body2024
JUDGMENT Harkesh Manuja, J. (Oral) By way of present revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge has been laid to an order dated 01.08.2023 passed by the Rent Controller, Sangrur, whereby in an eviction petition filed at the instance of respondents/landlords, provisional assessment/interim assessment of rent was made by the learned Rent Controller. 2. Briefly stating, claiming themselves to be owners/landlords of the tenanted premises i.e. double storey House No.F-24 situated at Officer Colony, Sangrur, an eviction petition invoking Section 20 of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 came to be filed against the petitioner/tenant on the grounds of arrears of rent from August 2019 onwards as well as his personal necessity. 3. Upon appearance, petitioner/tenant disputed the factum qua arrears of rent. Upon consideration of the pleadings, the Rent Controller, Sangrur vide order dated 01.08.2023 assessed the provisional rent payable by the petitioner/tenant w.e.f. 01.03.2020 to 31.07.2023 @ Rs. 12,000/- per month besides interest and cost(s) etc. 4. Impugning the aforesaid order dated 01.08.2023, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the Punjab Rent Act, 1995, there is no provision which enables the Rent Controller to pass any order regarding determination of provisional rent and, thus, the impugned order was wholly without jurisdiction and accordingly liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondent while opposing the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner submits that in terms of Section 25 of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act'), the Rent Controller was duly competent to make assessment of interim rent in case of dispute been raised by the tenant and, thus, the impugned order warrants no interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book. 7. For the purpose of adjudication of present revision petition, a close look at Section 25 of the Act would be essential and, thus, the same is extracted hereunder:- "Section 25. Payment of rent during eviction proceedings:-. (1) During the proceedings for recovery of possession under section 20, a tenant shall ensure timely payment of rent and other charges at the rate at which these were being paid immediately before the commencement of the proceeding. Payment of rent during eviction proceedings:-. (1) During the proceedings for recovery of possession under section 20, a tenant shall ensure timely payment of rent and other charges at the rate at which these were being paid immediately before the commencement of the proceeding. (2) if any proceeding for recovery of possession, there is any dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant, the Rent Authority shall, within fifteen days of the date of the first hearing of the proceeding fix an interim rent and other charges in relation to the premises to be paid or deposited within one month of the date of which the interim rent is fixed for such further time as a Rent Authority may allow in this behalf (3) If in any proceeding for recovery of possession there is any dispute as to the person or persons to whom the rent is payable the Rent Authority may direct the tenant to deposit with the Rent Authority the amount payable by him under sub-section (2) as the case may be, and in such case no person shall be entitled to withdraw the amount in deposit until the Rent Authority decides the dispute and makes an order for payment of the same. (4) If the Rent Authority is satisfied that any dispute referred to in sub-section (3) has been raised by a tenant for reasons which are false or frivolous, the Rent Authority may order the defence against eviction to be struck out and proceed with the hearing of the application. (5) If a tenant fails to make payment or deposit as required by this section, the Rent Authority may order the defence against eviction to be struck out and proceed with the hearing of the application." Perusal of Section 25(2) of the aforesaid Act, clearly empowers the Rent Controller to fix an interim rent besides other charges in relation to the tenanted premises during pendency of proceedings for recovery of possession, in case any dispute regarding amount of rent payable is raised by the tenant. 8. 8. In the humble opinion of this Court, the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that in terms of Section 25(2) of the Act, only interim rent can be assessed and not the provisional rent is wholly misplaced as there is no material difference between the meaning of two terms, provisional and interim as neither of two is final but merely a temporary arrangements likely to be changed in future. Thus, in such circumstances Section 25(2) of the Act essentially empowers the Rent Controller to pass orders regarding fixation of interim rent. No jurisdictional error can be found with the powers exercised by the Rent Controller merely for the reason that while passing the impugned order, instead of using the term "interim rent" the term "provisional rent" has been used while making assessment. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of merits. 9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.