Desktop View

Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer

Search

Cites 1 docs
Gurpreet Singh And Another vs Brijinder Bhardwaj And Another on 30 May, 2011

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and
an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Print it on a file/printer

Get this document in PDF

User Queries
rent amounts
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurdip Singh Batra vs Satnam Kaur on 16 October, 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CR NO.6130 OF 2013 (O&M)

DATE OF DECISION : 16th OCTOBER, 2014

Gurdip Singh Batra

.... Petitioner
Versus
Satnam Kaur
.... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA
****
Present : Mr. Puneet Jindal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Varun Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. A.S. Gill, Advocate for the respondent.

****

SURINDER GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

Heard.
This revision petition has been filed seeking relief of setting aside order dated
08.09.2010 of the Rent Controller, Jalandhar in ejectment application no.11 of
2009, whereby the provisional assessment of rent to be tendered by the tenant
was made. The order dated 08.09.2010 read as follows:
"Heard. Judicial file perused. As regards provisional assessment of rent,
petitioner has claimed rent as mentioned in para No.2 of the petition, which is
admitted to be correct in the written statement. With regard to the pleadings,
the rent deed is also gone through and as mentioned in para No.10, the
enhancement is at the rate of 10% from previous year one month rent.
Petitioner has given calculations in para No.2 of the petition, which is as per
rent note. So, rate of rent is assessed as per claim of the petitioner in different
dates as mentioned in this table.

Interest is payable on all this amount as per law. Costs of the petition are
assessed as Rs.1000/-. For tendering rent, interest and costs to come up on
14.10.2010.' The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has argued that in
this order the actual amount to be paid, including the arrear of rent, amount
of interest etc., was not assessed. He has relied upon the observations in the
case of Gurpreet Singh and another vs. Brijender Bhardwaj and another
reported as 2011(2) RCR (Civil) 770, wherein directions were issued to the Rent
Controllers in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh,
which are reproduced as follows:
"Hence, a direction is also given to all the Rent Controllers in the States of
Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh, to assess the provisional
rent by multiplying the rate of rent with the period for which it is due,
calculate the exact amount of interest @ 6% and after assessing the cost, give
an accurate amount to the tenant which he is supposed to tender on the date
fixed by the Court so that this kind of situation may not arise in future because
this Court has experienced that Rent Controllers are neither calculating the
amount of interest nor are giving the accurate amount."

He has further argued that the revision petitioner was paying the rent after
increase of 10 % of actual rent every year and not 10% increase on enhanced
amount of rent every year.
Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that out of the total due
amount as depicted by the petitioner in para 4 of the petition, and amount of
`80,000/- has already been paid. The Rent Controller has assessed arrears of
rent and accurate amount payable by stating in the order that he has to make
the payment as per calculation in the table in para 4 of the petition.
On perusal of the copy of the plaint, I find that the landlord has given the
details of the due amount in para 4 of the petition and after including the due
amount he has also calculated the interest. The cost has been assessed by the
learned Rent Controller, as such, there is compliance of the observations in the
case of Gurpreet Singh (supra). The rent assessed by the landlord is as per the
pleadings as it existed at that time, so there is no lapse and lacunae in the
order under challenge in this revision. I find no merit in this revision petition
and the same is dismissed. The balance as per the provisionally assessed
amount of rent be paid to the landlord/respondent. The Rent Controller will fix
date for payment of balance amount and in the event of default in payment by
tenant revision petitioner the consequence as per the observations in case
Rakesh Wadhawan Vs. M/s. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation reported as
2002(5) SCC 440 shall follow.
16th October, 2014 (SURINDER
GUPTA)
'raj' JUDGE

RAJ KUMAR
2014.10.27 16:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh