Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jarnail Singh vs Vijay Kumar on 22 January, 2014
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
CR No. 3596 of 2012 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
CR No. 3596 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision: 22.01.2014
Jarnail Singh ......Petitioner
Versus
Vijay Kumar .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.B.B.S Sobti,Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.R.K.ChauhanAdvocate
for the respondent
...
SABINA, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition challenging order dated 5.5.2012 (Annexure P1) whereby the appellate authority had set aside the order dated 7.3.2012 (Annexure P2) passed by the Rent Controller.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.
The Rent Controller, vide order dated 7.3.2012 (Annexure P2) directed the respondent to pay arrears of rent with effect from 1.11.2008 to 31.3.2012 at the rate of `850/- per month along with interest at the rate of 6% and costs to the tune of ` 500/-, in all `38950/- to be tendered on 4.4.2012. Aggrieved against the said order, tenant-respondent preferred an appeal. Learned Appellate Authority allowed the appeal vide order dated 5.5.2012(Annexure P1) CR No. 3596 of 2012 (O&M) 2 and directed the Rent Controller to assess the provisional rent afresh with effect from 26.4.2011.
In the present case, petitioner has paid rent with effect from 1.1.2006. Reliance was placed on affidavit executed by the previous owner dated 7.3.2012. Learned Appellate Authority has noticed that the affidavit was attested on 7.3.2012 and the paper for execution of the said affidavit was purchased on 7.3.2012. The said affidavit was, thus, not in existence when the ejectment petition was filed. As per the said affidavit, the previous landlord had stated that the tenant was in arrears of rent with effect from 1.1.2006. Learned Appellate Authority rightly came to the conclusion that the evidentiary value of the said affidavit would be seen during the trial. So far as petitioner is concerned, he had purchased the property in question vide sale deed dated 26.4.2011. Therefore, the Appellate Authority vide the impugned order dated 5.5.2012 (Annexure P1) rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to claim rent with effect from 26.4.2011 and directed the Rent Controller to assess the provisional rent afresh. No ground for interference is made out. However, anything said above would have no bearing on the merits of the case.
Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE January 22, 2014 arya