Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anju Rani Mehandiratta vs Manohar Singh And Another on 10 March, 2015
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Civil Revision No. 2826 of 2014 (O&M) -1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Civil Revision No. 2826 of 2014 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 10.3.2015.
Anju Rani Mehandiratta ......Petitioner
Versus
Manohar Singh and another .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.
None for respondent No. 1.
****
SABINA, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 5.2.2014 (Annexure P-5) whereby provisional rent was assessed by the Rent Controller.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner had placed on record rent note executed between the parties. Although, respondent had denied the execution of the said document but at this stage, the same could not be disregarded by the Rent Controller at the time of assessment of provisional rent.
None has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1. Petitioner and respondent No. 2 have sought ejectment of respondent No. 1 from the premises in question by moving a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949. Petitioner and respondent No. 2 have placed reliance on rent note dated 13.6.2012. Copy of the rent note has been placed on GURPREET SINGH 2015.03.12 16:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 2826 of 2014 (O&M) -2- record as Annexure P-2. A perusal of Annexure P-2 reveals that as per the rent note executed between the parties, the rate of rent had been fixed at ` 6,000/- per month. A perusal of the vernacular of Annexure P-2 reveals that it is signed by respondent No. 1-tenant. Although, at this stage, respondent No. 1 has denied the execution of Annexure P-2 but for the purposes of assessing the provisional rent, the Rent Controller should have relied upon the rent note. At this stage, there is no material on record to suggest that the rent note was not signed/executed by respondent No.1. The Rent Controller fell in error in assessing the provisional rent at the rate of ` 2,000/- per month as pleaded by respondent No. 1. In fact, the provisional rent was liable to be assessed in terms of the rent note dated 13.6.2012 (Annexure P-2).
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 5.2.2014 (Annexure P-5) is set aside and the Rent Controller is directed to assess the provisional rent by treating the rent at the rate of ` 6,000/- per month for the relevant period.
(SABINA) JUDGE March 10, 2015 Gurpreet GURPREET SINGH 2015.03.12 16:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh