Punjab-Haryana High Court
Munish Bhatia vs Smt. Kishni Devi And Anr. on 16 February, 2006
Equivalent citations: (2006)143PLR457
Author: Satish Kumar Mittal
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal
JUDGMENT Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
1. The petitioner-tenant has filed this revision petition challenging the order dated 9.2.2006, passed by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar, whereby the provisional assessment of the rent and costs payable by the petitioner has been made.
2. In this case, the respondents filed ejectment petition against the petitioner on the ground of non-payment of rent with effect from 1.7.2002 to 30.9.2002 at the rate of Rs. 3,758/- per month, with effect from 1.10.2002 to 30.9.2003 at the rate of Rs. 3,936/-per month, with effect from 1.10.2003 to 30.9.2004 at the rate of Rs. 4,132/- per month and with effect from 1.10.2004 to 30.9.2005 at the rate of Rs. 4,338/- per month. The respondents have also sought ejectment on the ground that the petitioner has materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises.
3. After appearance of the petitioner-tenant, the Rent Controller took into consideration his written statement and vide the impugned order provisionally assessed the rent and costs payable by him, while observing as under-
The respondent on the other hand admits the present rate of rent. He however claims that he had paid rent up to date till 30.05.2005. In proof of payment no rent receipt has been furnished by the respondent/tenant. The respondent has produced the balance sheet of the firm M/s Imperial Impex, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Jalandhar. Respondent has relied upon the ledger account entries regrading the rent paid for the various years from 2002 to 2004, on the basis of same respondent claims that rent has been paid till 30.05.2005 to the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner claims that the balance sheet furnished by the respondent do not pertain to the premises rented out by the petitioner to the respondent in so far as the firm M/s. Imperial Impex is functioning at Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar while the demised premises is located in New Model House, Jalandhar. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, wherein respondent is claiming payment of arrears of rent but has failed to prove the same, I am of the considered view that in view of the law laid down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court onus to prove payment will be heavily on the tenant during the trial, therefore, respondent is directed to tender rent for the period from 1.07.2002 to 30.9.2002 @ Rs. 3,768/- per month, 1.10.2002 to 30.9.2003 @ Rs. 3,936/-, 01.10.2003 to 30.09.2004 @ Rs. 4,132/- and 01.10.2004 to 30.08.2005 @ Rs. 4,338/- per month. Cost of petition is assessed Rs. 500/-.
4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Rent Controller has illegally assessed the provisional rent and costs payable by the petitioner without taking into consideration the submissions, pleadings and documents placed on record by the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
5. I do not find any merit in the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. As per Clause (i) of Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, the Rent Controller is required to provisionally assess the arrears of rent, interest and costs of the litigation, which the tenant shall pay or tender on the first date of hearing of the main petition following the date of such assessment by the Controller. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Rakesh Wadhawan and Ors. v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and Ors. (2002-2)131 P.L.R. 370 has held that such order based on an opinion formed prima facie by perusal of the pleadings and such other material as may be available before the Rent Controller on that day would be an interim or provisional order which shall have to give way to a final order to be made or further enquiry to be held later in the event of there being a dispute between the parties calling for such determination. The Collector would, however, at the outset assess the rent, the interest and the cost of application in the light of and to the extent of dispute, if any, raised by the tenant. Such amount, as determined by Controller shall be liable to be paid or tendered by the Controller on the first date of hearing falling after the date of the preliminary or provisional order of Controller. The rent so assessed is only provisional rent and in case, the tenant wants to contest the same, it is open for him to put his claim after tendering such rent under protest. In this case, the Rent Controller has only assessed the provisional rent prima facie on the basis of material before him. He was not required to take evidence regarding rate of rent and period of rent.
6. In view of the aforesaid legal position, 1 do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and no ground is made out for interference by this Court.
7. Dismissed.