Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sat Pal vs Lalit Kumar on 12 October, 2009
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
Civil Revision No. 3680 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 3680 of 2009
Date of decision: 12.10.2009.
Sat Pal ...petitioner
Versus
Lalit Kumar ...respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Sharan Sethi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate for the respondent.
RANJIT SINGH J.
This order will dispose of three Civil Revisions No. 3743, 3680 and 3688 of 2009.
Respondent is a landlord and sought eviction of the petitioner-tenant from Plot No. 784, measuring 14 x 23 sq. ft. of Shed No. 771, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Chandigarh. Eviction of the petitioner is prayed from half back portion of Shed No. 771, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Chandigarh. Application seeking assessment of provisional rent is allowed and those orders are under challenge in 3 revision petitions and these are Civil Revisions No. 3743, 3680 and 3688 of 2009. Assessment of rent regarding tenancy of main gate and covered first floor of Shed No. 771, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh is under challenge in third revision petition.
The petitioner-tenant filed a reply on 5.6.2008 where he took a stand that the tenancy between the parties is of one Civil Revision No. 3680 of 2009 2 comprehensive portion of 14 x 45 sq. ft. and said tenancy was under
Sh. Manoj Kumar, who was the landlord and is now no more. It is further stated that the petitioner never paid rent to the respondent and does not even recognise him as a son of late Manoj Kumar. Plea further is that legal heirs of Manoj Kumar have never been impleaded as petitioners in the rent petitions. It is stated that the petitioner had come in the premises in the year 1999 on an oral tenancy at a monthly rent of Rs. 4,000/- per month under Sh. Manoj Kumar and under the respondent. Subsequently, this rent was enhanced to Rs. 7,000/- per month in respect of an area of 14 x 45 sq. ft. It is denied that any separate tenancy of an area of 14 x 23 sq. ft. as pleaded by the respondent in the eviction petition was ever entered into. In short, the plea of the petitioner is that there is only one comprehensive tenancy of an area of 14 x 45 sq. ft. On this basis, the grievance of the petitioner is that except for carrying out assessment of provisional rent in regard to this premises, the Rent Controller could not have assessed the provisional rent regarding the remaining tenancies, which were denied by the petitioner. It is also pleaded that the respondent herein had divided one comprehensive tenancy into two separate tenancies putting lease deed dated 20.9.2005, which is stated to be forged and fabricated document.
Reference is also made to some other material document to show that this has been completely ignored while passing the impugned order.
I have perused the impugned order passed. The Rent Controller has come to the conclusion that the judgment in Rakesh Wadhawan's case will be applicable for assessment of the Civil Revision No. 3680 of 2009 3 provisional rent. He has noticed that there is a dispute in regard to the tenancy or the rented premises and further observed that the Court is not required to enter into detailed sifting of evidence while making provisional assessment of the rent. The decision would be on the basis of evidence that is led by the parties before the Court.
Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to number of judgments to urge that where the tenancy is disputed, the Rent Controller is not under obligation to make a provisional assessment of rent. In this regard, he has referred to Hukma Devi versus Bhagwan Dass, 2003(1) RCR 533, Ramanand Shastri versus Gian Singh 2003 (1) RCR 735, Devinder Singh Puri versus B.N. Rampal 2004 (2) RCR 216, Narinder Singh vesus Sarabjit Singh 2006 (2) RCR 226 and M/s Rachitech Engineering Pvt. Ltd. versus M/s Kundan Steel Pvt. Ltd. 2006 (2) RCR 687.
There is no doubt that in all the cases referred to by the counsel for the petitioner the relationship of landlord and tenant is disputed. The Rent Controller may not be under an obligation to make a provisional assessment of rent when tenancy is disputed. The view may also be that in such cases the Rent Controller may not make a provisional assessment of rent at the risk of tenant being evicted ultimately on account of non deposit of rent. In my view, ratio of law laid down in these judgments will not be applicable to the facts of this case. Here tenancy as such is not disputed by the petitioner. As per the petitioner, there is one comprehensive tenancy and not a separate tenancy. It will be a matter, which is required to be gone into by the Rent Controller.
Prima facie view is possible that there was more than one Civil Revision No. 3680 of 2009 4 tenancy as each petition has been filed by the respondent on the basis of rent deed. While determining the provisional assessment, the Court can not give finding on the aspect of fabrication of documents. This point is raised and is to be substantiated before the Rent Controller. Rent Controller is to decide if the deeds are fabricated one. The view taken by the Rent Controller prima facie show that there are more than one tenancies, which are not to be gone into at this stage. The respondent has relied on some tenancies and it is yet to be seen if the same are true and false. It is not possible to take a view that the tenancies are disputed or are fabricated. All these pleas have to be decided by the Rent Controller. The action of the Rent Controller in fairly assessing the provisional rent thus, cannot be said to be bad on that ground.
At this stage, counsel for the petitioner has pleaded that the documents, which the respondent has produced are unmarked and unregistered and should be impounded. This plea is also required to be raised before the Rent Controller. The submission that this plea was so raised but has not been dealt with cannot be accepted. If that be so, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to make an appropriate application in this regard. If so advised, the petitioner may do it now. I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Rent Controller in making the provisional assessment of the rent.
In addition, the counsel for the petitioner would impugn the order in CR No. 3743 of 2009 on the ground that full benefit of the rent deposit has not been given to him on the pretext that these documents pertain to some other lease deed. Counsel would contend that there is no other lease to which these documents would Civil Revision No. 3680 of 2009 5 pertain. Accordingly, the benefit of the same has wrongly been denied to the petitioner. This is purely a factual dispute which is to be decided by the Rent Controller and can not be gone into by revisional court. There is no merit in the revision petitions. The same are dismissed.
October 12, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE