PROJECT FILE

LAND LAWS

TOPIC: RENT STRUCTURE UNDER PUNJAB

RENT ACT,1995.

SUBMITTED TO: MRS. DEEPIKA

PROF. RAYAT COLLAGE OF LAW

SUBMITTED BY: PARAMJIT SINGH

B.A.LLB 8TH SEM ROLL NO. 16274
 1

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY

I am pleased to declare that this project file titled: RENT STRUCTURE UNDER PUNJAB RENT
ACT,1995 (SECTION 6-19) is my original work which is assigned to me as per the syllabus
supervision of MRS. DEEPIKA.

All sources used for this project file has been fully and properly cited

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my teacher as well as Our

principal gave me the golden opportunity to do this topic, which also helped me in

doing a lot of research and came to know about so many new things. I am really

thankful to them

I am thankful to the library staff for helping in my research

I would also like to thank my parents and friends who helped me a lot in making of

this project

Above all I would like to thank God for keeping me in a position

to make this project.

Paramjit Singh
 2

RENT STRUCTURE UNDER PUNJAB RENT ACT,1995 (SECTION 6-19):

INTRODUCTION:

SECTION 6-16 deals with rent, in these provisions all the limits and priviles are defined. These sections
specifically deals with who much rent can be increased, if rent is not paid what is the remedy and
what are other charges for which landlord is entitled along with the rent.

There are provisions which also deals with deposit of rent by tenant in case he is in about who is
actually entitled to the rent.

HISTORY:

The rent legislation in India was fall out of a war as in case of England. As a result of the First World
War, on the provisional rent legislation came first of all in Bombay. This was followed by the rent acts
in Calcutta and Rangoon. The position in rest of British India remain the same, as was beerier to the
war, that the landlord tenant relationship was governed by the transfer of property act, 1882.

The second world war was mainly responsible for the rent legislation and other provisions of the
British India. The first one was the New Delhi house rent control order of 1939. In 1941, the Punjab
Mysore Madras rent control acts came. The Bihar house and control order of 1942 was followed by
the land control order in Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Assam in 1946, Orissa, Rajasthan and
Kerala had their rent control orders in 1947, 1948 and 1950 respectively.

In order to partly set of the Costs of the war by raising additional revenue, the British government
imposed a new tax under the Punjab and immovable property tax, 1940. The provisional government
was conscious about the fact that the burden of the new tax on urban properties may be passes on by
the landlords on their tenant. The British government being well conversant with the time tested
therapy of that legislation in their own country introduced the Punjab rent restriction act 1941, this
act remain in force for five years and further extended for one year when Independence and partition
was around the corner the new Punjab urban restriction act 1947 came into force after the
independence it was felt that the new act is required to be implemented there for new act East
Punjab urban and restriction act 1949 was came to into force this was very well drafted but later on
two amendments were introduced in this act the present act Punjab rent act 1995 came into force on
30th 11 2013 this act is updated act that contains balance provision in favour of tenant and landlords.
 3

OBJECTIVE: of the Punjab rent act 1995

• First and foremost objective of this act is to regulate rents.

• provisions regarding repairs and maintenance keeps the premises suitable for living.
• In case of any reasonable excuse or rented premises can be vacated.
• a provision is in the form of Bona fired requirement and summary procedure in case of
retirement from government department helps landlord in getting his or her premises early
and easily.
• Certain premises or exempted from the applicability in which sports the reasonable
classification.
• it introduced one chapter that protect tenants from the unreasonable conduct of landlord
that is duties of landlords.
• Number of grounds on which landlord can seek direction has been introduced to getting
possession of premises on reasonable grounds.
• taking back position in emergence has been also introduced.
• provisions of subletting has been separately dealt by the act.
• the concept of limited tenancy has also been introduced.
• all these things are for benefit of both landlord as well as tenet.

SECTION 6: PAYABLE RENT:

The Rent payable in relation to the premises shall be agreed rent between the landlord and the
tenant: Provided that the agreed rent shall be increased by five per cent of the last rent for two years
and third year increase shall be based upon the increase in the Consumer Price index over the
corresponding three years.

Example. - If the Consumer Price Index increases by eighteen per cent in three years, the rent for the
fourth year shall be the rent for the first year multiplied by one point eighteen. This cycle shall
continue.1

Now if landlord wants to increase this rent the he can increase it upto 5%:

5000 + 250= 5250

1
P.S. KHURANA, “A TREATISE ON LAND LAWS IN PUNJAB AND HARYANA” “5TH EDITION” “PUBLISHED BY:
SHREE RAM LAW HOUSE”
 4

The maximum limt to increase rent is based on consumer price index eg. Average increase in prices
from last 3 year is 18%.

Then the rent for fourth year will be Rs.5900 (as based on consumer price index)

SECTION 7: OMITTED

SECTION 8: OTHER CHARGES PAYABLE:

(1) A tenant shall be liable to pay the landlord, besides the rent, the following charges, namely:-

(a) maintenance charges at the rate of ten per cent of the rent; and

(b) without prejudice to the liability of the landlord to pay the property tax to the local authority, the
pro rata property tax in relation to the premises.

Explanation - For the purpose of calculating the monthly charges payable by the tenant to the
landlord towards the property tax, the amount paid or payable as tax for the immediately preceding
year or the estimated tax payable shall from the basis.

(2) The landlord shall be entitled to recover from the tenant the amount paid by him towards charges
for electricity or water consumed or other charges levied by a local or other authority which is
ordinarily payable by the tenant.

SECTION-9: REVISION OF RENT IN CERTAIN CASES:

(1) Where a landlord has at any time, before the commencement of this Act, with or without the
approval of the tenant, or after the commencement of this Act with the written approval of the
tenant, incurred expenditure for any improvement, addition or structural alteration in the premises
not being expenditure on decoration or tenantable repairs necessary or usual for such permises, and
the cost of that improvement, addition or alteration has not been taken into account in determining
the rent of the premises, the landlord may lawfully increase the rent per year by a amount not
exceeding ten per cent of such cost.

(2) Where, after the rent of a premises has been fixed under this Act, or agreed upon, as the case may
be, there has been a decrease, diminution or deterioration of accommodation in such premises, the
tenant may claim reduction in the rent.2

SECTION 10: NOTICE OF REVISION OF RENT:

2
P.S. KHURANA, “A TREATISE ON LAND LAWS IN PUNJAB AND HARYANA” “5TH EDITION” “PUBLISHED BY:
SHREE RAM LAW HOUSE”
 5

(1) Where a landlord intends to revise the rent of any premises under sub-section (1) of section 9, he
shall give to the tenant a notice in Form as specified in Schedule V to this Act, of his intention to make
the revision and, in so far as such revision is lawful under this Act, it shall be due and recoverable from
the date of improvement, addition or structural alteration.

(2) Every notice under sub-section (1) shall be in writing signed by or on behalf of the landlord and
given in the manner provided in section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

SECTION 11&12 : OMITTED.

SECTION 13: RECEIPT TO BE GIVEN FOR RENT PAID:

(1) Every tenant shall pay rent and other charges payable to the landlord within the time fixed by
contract or in the absence of such stipulation, by the fifteenth day of the month next following the
month for which it is payable and where any default occurs in the payment of rent or other charges,
the tenant shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of fifteen per cent per annum from the
date on which such payment of rent and other charges payable is due to the date on which it is paid.

(2) Every tenant who makes payment of rent or other charges payable or advance towards such rent
or other charges to his landlord in cash shall be entitled, to obtain forthwith from the landlord or his
authorised agent a written receipt for the amount paid to him, signed by the landlord or his
authorised agent:
Provided that it shall be open to the tenant to remit the rent to his landlord by postal money order.

(3) If the landlord or his authorised agent refuses or neglects to deliver to the tenant the receipt
referred to in sub-section (2), the Rent Authority may, on an application made to him in this behalf by
the tenant within two months from the date of payment and after hearing the landlord or his
authorised agent, by order direct the landlord or his authorised agent to pay to the tenant, by way of
damages, such sum not exceeding double the amount of rent or other charges paid by the tenant and
the costs of the application and shall also grant a certificate to the tenant in respect of the rent or
other charges paid.3

3
Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (bareactslive.com)
 6

(4) If the landlord supplies the particulars of his bank account the tenant shall deposit the rent and
other charges payable in such bank account as and when due.

SECTION 14: DEPOSIT OF RENT BY TENANT:

(1) Where the landlord does not accept any rent and other charges payable tendered by the tenant
within the time and the manner referred to in section 13 or refuses or neglects to deliver a receipt
referred to therein or where there is a bona fide doubt as to the person or persons to whom the rent
and other charges are payable, the tenant may deposit such rent and other charges payable with the
Rent Authority according to the provisions of sub-section (2) below.

(2) The deposit shall be accompanied by an application by the tenant containing the following
particulars, namely :-

(a) the premises for which the rent and other charges payable are deposited with a description
sufficient for indentifying the premises;
(b) the period for which the rent and other charges payable are deposited;
(c) the name and address of the landlord or the person or persons claiming to be entitled to such rent
and other charges payable; and
(d) the reasons and circumstances for which the application for depositing the rent and other charges
payable is made; the rent and other charges payable unless the landlord has withdrawn the amount
deposited before the date of filing an application for the recovery of possession of the premises from
the tenant.

(3) if the rent and other charges payable are deposited within the time specified in sub-section (/) and
do not case to be valid deposit for the reasons r specified in sub-section(2), the deposit shall
consititute payment of rent and other charges payable to the landlord as if the amount deposited has
been validly tendered. 4

SECTION 16: Saving as to acceptance of rent and other charges payable and forfeiture in deposit:
(1) The withdrawal of rent and other charges payable deposited under section 14 in the manner
provided therein shall not operate as an admission against the person withdrawing it of the
correctness of the rate of rent and other charges payable for the period of default, the amount due or

4
Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (bareactslive.com)
 7

of any other facts stated in the tenant's application for depositing the rent and other charges payable
under the said section.

(2) Any rent and other charges payable in deposit which are not withdrawn by the landlord or by the
person or persons entitled to receive such rent and other charges payable shall be forfeited to
Government by an order made by the Rent Authority, if they are not withdrawn before the expiration
of five years from the date of receiving the intimation of deposit.

(3) Before passing an order of forfeiture, the Rent Authority shall give notice to the landlord or the
person or persons entitled to receive the rent and other charges in deposit by registered post at the
last known address of such landlord or person or persons and shall also publish the notice in his office
and in any local newspaper.

REPAIRS OF PREMISES:

SECTION 17: DUTIES OF LANDLORD:

(1) Subject to the contract in writing to the contrary every landlord shall be bound to keep the
premises in good and tenantable repairs in relation to matters falling under Part A of Schedule II to
this Act.

Explanation. - The expression "Good and tenantable repairs" under this section and section 18 shall
mean such repairs as shall keep the premises in the same condition in which it was let out except for
the normal wear and tear.5

(2) Where any repairs, in relation to a matter falling under Part A of Schedule II to this Act without
which the premises are not habitable or useable except with undue inconvenience are to be made
and the landlord neglects or fails to make them within a period of three months after notice in
writing, the tenant may apply to the Rent Authority for permission to make such repairs himself and
may submit to the Rent Authority an estimate of the cost of such repairs and, thereupon the Rent
Authority may, after giving the landlord an opportunity of being heard and after considering such
estimate of the cost and making such inquiries as it may consider necessary, by an order in writing,
permit the tenant to make such repairs at such cost as may be specified in the order and it shall

5
Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (bareactslive.com)
 8

thereafter be lawful for the tenant to make such repairs himself and to deduct the cost thereof, which
shall in no case exceed the amount so specified, from the rent or otherwise recover it from the
landlord:

Provided that the amount so deducted or recoverable from rent in any year shall not exceed one-half
of the rent payable by the tenant for that year and any amount remaining not recovered in that year
shall be deducted or recovered from rent in the subsequent years at the rate of not more than
twenty-five per cent of the rent for a month:

Provided further that where there are more than one premises owned by a landlord in a building, the
tenants thereof may jointly carry out the repairs and share the expenses proportionately.

(3) Nothing in sub-section (2) shall apply to a premises which, -

(a) at the time of letting out was not habitable or useable except with undue inconvenience and
the tenant had agreed to take the same in that condition;

(b) after being let out was caused to be not habitable or useable except with undue inconvenience
by the tenant.

SECTION 18: DUTIES OF TENANT:

(1) Every tenant shall be bound to keep the premises in good and tenantable repairs in relation to the
matters falling under Part B of Schedule II to this Act.6

(2) Where any repairs, in relation to a matter falling under Part B of Schedule II to this Act without
which the premises are not habitable or usable except with undue inconvenience, are to be made and
the tenant neglects or fails to make them within a period of sixty days after notice in writing, the
landlord may apply to the Rent Authority for permission to make such repairs himself and may submit
to the Rent Authority an estimate of the cost of such repairs, and, thereupon, the Rent Authority may,
after giving the tenant an opportunity of being heard and after considering such estimate of the cost
and making such enquiries as he may consider necessary, by an order in writing, permit the landlord
to make such repairs at such cost as may be specified in the order, and it shall thereafter be lawful for

6
Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (bareactslive.com)
 9

the landlord to make such repairs himself and to recover the cost of such repairs, which shall in no
case exceed the amount so specified, from the tenant.

(3) The landlord or a person authorised by him shall have the right to enter and inspect the premises
after notice to the tenant in the Form specified in Schedule VI to this Act.
(4) The tenant shall make good all damages caused to premises by his negligence within ninety days
of being informed in writing to do so by the landlord failing which the landlord may apply to the Rent
Authority for permission to make good the said damages and the Rent Authority shall decide the
matter in the manner provided in sub-section (2).

(5) The tenant shall hand over the possession of the premises on termination of tenancy in the same
condition, except for the normal wear and tear, as it was when it was handed over to him at the
beginning of such tenancy and in a case where certain damages have been caused, not being
damages caused by war, act of God or disturbances, the tenant shall make good the damages caused
to the premises failing which the landlord may apply to the Rent Authority for permission to make
good the said damages and the Rent Authority shall decide the matter in the manner provided in sub-
section (2).

(6) The tenant shall not, whether during the subsistence of tenancy or thereafter, demolish any
improvement or alteration, carried out by him in the premises or remove any material used in such
improvement or alteration, other than any fixture of a removable nature, without the permission of
the landlord failing which such demolition or alteration shall be deemed to be a damage caused by
such tenant under sub-section (4) and shall be dealt with accordingly.

SECTION 19: CUTTING OFF OR WITHHOLDING ESSENTIAL SUPPLY OR SERVICE:

(1) No landlord or tenant either by himself or through any person purporting to act on his behalf shall,
without just and sufficient cause cut off or withhold any essential supply or service enjoyed by the
tenant or landlord, as the case may be, in respect of the premises let to him, or, under his own
occupation.7

(2) If a landlord or a tenant contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1), the tenant or the landlord,
as the case may be, may make an application to Rent Authority complaining of such contravention.

7
Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (punjabxp.com)
 10

(3) If the Rent Authority is satisfied that the essential supply or service was wilfully cut off or withheld,
it may pass an order directing the restoration of the amenities immediately pending the inquiry
referred to in sub-section (4):
Provided that interim order may be passed under this sub-section without giving notice to the
landlord or the tenant, as the case may be.
(4) If the Rent Authority on inquiry finds that the essential supply or service enjoyed by the tenant or
landlord was cut off or withheld by the landlord or the tenant, as the case may be, wilfully and
without just and sufficient cause, he shall make an order directing the restoration of such supply or
service.

(5) The Rent Authority shall complete an enquiry under sub-section (4) within a period of thirty days
of filing of an application for enquiry unless the Rent Authority, for reasons to be recorded in writing,
decides that it is not possible to complete the enquiry within such period.

(6) The Rent Authority may, in his discretion, direct that compensation not exceeding one thousand
rupees be paid to, -

(a) the landlord or the tenant, as the case may be, by the complainant if the application under sub-
section (2) was made frivolously or vexatiously;

(b) the complainant, if the landlord or the tenant, as the case may be, had cut off or withheld the
supply or service without just and sufficient cause.

Explanation. - In this section the expression "essential supply or service" shall include supply of water,
electricity, lights in passages and on staircases, conservancy and sanitary services.
Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, withholding any essential supply or service shall
include acts or commissions attributable to the landlord or the tenant, as the case may be, on account
of which the essential supply or service is cut off by a local authority or any other agency.

CASE LAW:

HEM RAJ VS MANVEEN KAUR ON 11TH JANUARY, 2018 (PUNJAB-HARYANA HIGH COURT)
CRNO. 8354 OF 2017(O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: 11.1.2018
 11

HEM RAJ …PETITIONER

VERSUS
MANVEEN KAUR …RESPONDENT

FACTS OF THE CASE:

I had heard Mr. Vinod S.Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant and Mr. Sangram S.Saron
and Ms. Shubreet Kaur, learned counsel for the respondent landlady on caveat on November 29,
2017 at considerable length and had reserved orders which are being pronounced today.

This is tenant's petition against the order passed in Rent Appeal No.94 of 2014 decided on October
24, 2017 whereby the orders of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh has been set aside and the petitioner
evicted on ground of ceasing to occupy the demised premises bearing address SCF No.15, Manimajra
UT Chandigarh which is commonly known as the Transport market. When tenant ceases to occupy
rented premises for a period of more than four months it furnishes ground to the landlord to seek 1
of 10 CR No.8354 of 2017 (O&M) the eviction of the tenant.

The tenant was put in occupation of the first floor of the demised premises in 1998 by the respondent
landlord to carry on Consultancy business. Over a period of time the user changed to liquor business
and of property dealing in the premises, though this fact is not of any great importance to the
conclusion to be reached in a case under Section 13 (2) (v) of the East Punjab Hem Raj vs Manveen
Kaur on 11 January, 2018 Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/189774749/ 1 Urban Rent
Restriction Act, 1949 ("1949 Act") where tenant has ceased to occupy the premises without
reasonable cause.8

The further broad facts of the case are that the electric connection of the first floor was given on
August 28, 1998 by the respondent. The last payment on the meter bill was made on October 18,
2001. Witness from the administration testified that the electricity connection was disconnected in
2002 and the water connection in 2005. The position remained the same till the filing of the rent
petition in March 2007. The tenancy was for a period of three years from May 01, 1998 to April 30,
2001 but continued till the landlady filed a civil suit for ejectment of the tenant, for recovery of rent
and for damages in 2003 as a result of Chandigarh Administration notification dated November 07,
2002 exempting buildings from the operation of the Rent Act whose rent was more than `1500/- per

8
Hem Raj vs Manveen Kaur on 11 January, 2018 (indiankanoon.org)
 12

month. The notification was quashed by Court reverting the landlords to pursue cases of eviction
under the rent law.

Upon trial, the Rent Controller dismissed the rent petition holding that no evidence has come on
record to show that the premises were actually locked and in reaching this conclusion relied on
statements of respondent witness No.1 Subhash RW-2 Hemant and tenant appearing 2 of 10 CR
No.8354 of 2017 (O&M) himself as RW-3 that he is in occupation of the demised premises. The
learned Rent Controller distinguished the judgment of this Court in Dr. Suraj Chander Oberoi v.
Darshan Singh Sodhi, 2003 (1) RCR (Rent) 722. The ruling holds that when it is proved that there is no
consumption of electricity for a year and oral evidence is also available that shop remained locked,
then an inference can be drawn against the tenant that he has ceased to occupy the premises.

The Rent Controller held that pleadings do not show from which year and month the premises is
locked. In the petition it was pleaded by the landlady that tenant had ceased to occupy the premises
since last four months whereas the statutory requirement for eviction is tenant ceasing to occupy
premises for four months without reasonable cause.

7. It was argued on behalf of the tenant that the act of physical locking of premises is literal
interpretation which has no basis in Section 13 (2) (v) of the 1949 Act. The tenant urged that since the
premises were locked with his keys therefore, he had not ceased to occupy the premises. In my
considered view, this contention is not the correct interpretation of Section 13 (2) (v) of the 1949 Act.
The Rent Controller interpreted locking in an unrealistic literal sense which interpretation has no basis
in the 1949 Act.

This wrong and literal interpretation of the Rent Controller has been corrected by the Appellate
Authority, Chandigarh in the impugned order of eviction dated October 24, 2017 holding that
occupation does not mean mere possession. The possession may be symbolic but the word
occupation used in the Act will be occupation in view of the purpose for 3 of 10 CR No.8354 of 2017
(O&M) which the premises is rented out. It is observed in order in rent appeal that if the evidence of
the tenant is taken into consideration he has not been able to prove that he is using the premises for
the purpose he has taken the same on rent. The user in the beginning of the tenancy was Consultancy
business but it has deviated to liquor trade and property dealing from the first floor of the building
which albeit is without amenities i.e. electricity or water since a pretty long time.9

9
Hem Raj vs Manveen Kaur on 11 January, 2018 (indiankanoon.org)
 13

According to the tenant he had submitted an application for restoration of electricity supply in 2003,
then again in 2005 and then in 2012. He admitted that Electricity Department had cut electric supply
to the demised premises since 2002. Neither did the tenant bring copies of the application he says he
submitted to the department for production in Court praying for restoration of the power connection.
The position regarding water connection is no better. The water connection was discontinued in
December 2005 and arrears of `19,790/- were outstanding in December 2005. It is established
beyond doubt that the first floor premises is without electricity since 2002 and without water supply
since 2005. The present eviction petition was filed in 2007.

Notably, in rent appeal it is observed that if the tenant was conducting his business of liquor or
property dealing, either way, he must also have some proof of other activities connected to the
business i.e. maintenance of account books, bank statements, sale orders, invoices etc. to show his
occupation of the premises for the material period prior to filing of the eviction petition. But no such
evidence was brought on record by him. The effect of which; See, judgment in Jaswant Kaur v. Sarla
Devi, 1987 (2) RCR (Rent) 660. There is another insuperable difficulty in the way of the 4 of 10 CR
No.8354 of 2017 (O&M) tenant, which is that in the Union Territory, Chandigarh the building, in which
falls the demised premises, is classified as a Shop-cum-Flat while there are also Shop-cum-Offices.
Shop is for business while flat is for residence. If the first floor is for residence then it could not be
used for business and that is also a violation of the law by change of user which can be a ground for
resumption of property. It was not necessary for the respondent to spell out any specific date and her
claim since proof for four months is enough to invite the ground of eviction by act of ceasing to
occupy the premises. Without electricity and water it is highly improbable that the tenant was doing
any business or occupying the demised premises for the purposes it was taken on rent. Even if the
rent deed reveals that the premises was rented for consultancy business while it was a residential flat
on the first floor and accepting that it was so done by mutual consent, even then the same cannot be
permitted as it would violate Section 11 of the 1949 Act and on this score as well the tenant is liable
to be evicted. For this proposition the Appellate Authority relied on the decision of the Supreme
Court in Nand Kishore v. Yashpal Singh, (2009) 16 SCC 634. Section 11 of the Act creates a embargo
that no person shall convert a residential building into a non-residential building except with the
permission in writing of the Controller. It is not even the case of the tenant that the premises were
used for residential purposes.10 For these reasons the Appellate Authority rightly held that the
learned Rent Controller had not appreciated the evidence in the proper prospective and wrongly held

10
Hem Raj vs Manveen Kaur on 11 January, 2018 (indiankanoon.org)
 14

that the tenant is in occupation of the demised premises. This finding has been reversed for good and
sufficient reasons and I has no reason to disagree. The necessary inference from the 5 of 10 CR
No.8354 of 2017 (O&M) entire preponderance of evidence is only that the tenant ceased to occupy
the premises in question for more than the statutory period and the case falls in the maxim : res ipsa
loquitur, the application of which shifts the burden of proof on the defendant.

Moreover, there is another reason which persuades me to conclude in the dismissal of this petition is
that remedy under Section 10 was not taken recourse to by the tenant for restoration of amenities
nor was a suit filed against the administration seeking mandatory injunction against the authorities to
restore water and electricity supply to the demised part of the building. Merely making
unsubstantiated complaints to the authorities in 2003, 2005 and 2012 is not sufficient to dispel the
darkness of the first floor.

CONTENTION BY PETITIONER SIDE:

Mr. Bhardwaj cites Kuldip Chand v. Kishori Lal, 2009 (2) RCR (Rent) 91 to urge that mere closure of the
shop itself will not be proof of cessation of business. Vacation of tenant can be sought if cessation was
without reasonable cause. This Court held in that case that it is permissible for the tenant to even
contend the business was seasonal in character and there were other supervening reasons such as
illness that necessitated the closure of the premises. Nothing to support such a plea was taken by the
tenant and, therefore, the case is distinguishable on facts.

Next in line, Mr. Bhardwaj cites Sh. Rattan Chand Sharma v. Nikka Ram, 2015 (4) PLR 8 to contend
that if tenant did not require electricity connection, he would have only sought for the surrender of
the electricity connection and would not have merely allowed it to be disconnected for non-payment
of electricity charges and by non-user the 6 of 10 CR No.8354 of 2017 (O&M) finding of the Court in
the case was that tenant had an oven in the premises for running his bakery business and he did not
require any electricity. I do not know how this case helps Mr. Bhardwaj when the Court holds that
"the electricity is not seen any longer as a luxury or comfort but it is even seen to be absolute
necessity for residential or non-residential purpose. We are not considering the case of a hutment in
the village.11 On the other hand, we are considering the building which is a business premise and a
property as falling within the Jalandhar cantonment area. It is inconceivable that any occupied
building which is actually put to use could have been put to use without any electricity connection.

11
Hem Raj vs Manveen Kaur on 11 January, 2018 (indiankanoon.org)
 15

The appellate court must have called the respondent's bluff but chose to buy an unconvincing story to
allow the appeal with shoddy reasoning".

CONTENTION BY RESPONDENT SIDE:

13. On the other hand, Mr. Sangram S. Saron, learned counsel has relied on the five judgments i.e.
Mohar Singh v. Harinder Singh and another, 1990 (2) RCR (Rent) 512; Karam Nath v. Gurbux Singh
Juneja (dead) through his LRs, (2008) 1 RCR (Rent) 319; Gurbax Singh v. Subedar Sarwan Singh, 1994
(2) RCR (Rent) 351; Ram Kishan v. Santra Devi and others, 1986 SCC OnLine P&H 62 & M/s Babu Ram
Gopal and others v. Mathra Dass, (1990) 2 SCC 279 seeking the dismissal of the petition.

In Karam Nath case the Court held that the initial burden of establishing cessation of occupation is
always on the landlord by producing cogent evidence. Once it is so established by the landlord then it
is for the tenant to prove that he ceased to occupy the demised premises due to some reasonable
cause. The earlier dicta on the point is in Gurbax Singh case (Supra) holding that onus to prove
sufficient cause is always on the tenant.

7 of 10 CR No.8354 of 2017 (O&M) Court will not go into the question as to whether tenant had the
intention to bring the tenancy to an end. However, non-consumption of electricity alone is no proof
that tenant had ceased to occupy the premises. This means that the entire attending circumstances
would have to be taken into consideration from the point of view of the cumulative effect of the
entire evidence produced by the parties and where the probabilities lie in their reading and on
appreciation of facts.

Mr. Saron points out to the dicta in Ram Kishan v. Santra Devi and others decided by a Division Bench
on reference to larger Bench reported in PLR (1986) 89 P&H 417: 1986 SCC OnLine P&H 62 where the
question has been answered whether the Indian Evidence Act is applicable to proceedings before the
authorities under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. The important question
is answered in the affirmative, holding that the provisions of the Evidence Act are indeed applicable to
the proceedings before the authorities under the Act. The principle would apply to the Punjab Rent
Act as well.12

HELD:

The Supreme Court considered the meaning of the expression "has ceased to occupy" and accepted
the view that it is in present perfect tense which contemplates a period even connecting in some way

12
Hem Raj vs Manveen Kaur on 11 January, 2018 (indiankanoon.org)
 16

with the present time and thus concluding that non-occupation of the premises by a tenant would
continue till the date of filing of the application for his eviction on the ground covered by Section 13
(2) (v) of the 1949 Act.

No other point was pressed.

For the foregoing reasons, I am not prepared to admit the case for any further consideration when
not convinced by the contention of Mr. Bhardwaj that there has not been any failure on the part of
the tenant to occupy the rented premises for the statutory period and accordingly, I find no merit in
this petition or any error in the judgment of the Appellate Authority. The petition is dismissed. 20.

The petitioner will hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent within
a month from the date of availability of this order. In case of default, the respondent may seek police
help to recover possession.
 17

Conclusion:

This new act came into force on 1995 has implemented in whole state of Punjab
on 30 November 2013. This act removes shortcoming of the previous act .new
act was drafted by taking into care that no more rented premises are required
by the tenant is there for adequate provisions in favour of landlord has been
introduced. This new act also Limit the unreasonable conduct of the landlord.
This act is one of the prudent legislation of the present time.
 18

BIBLOGRAPHY:

ONLINE SOURCES:

Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (punjabxp.com)

Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (bareactslive.com)

Hem Raj vs Manveen Kaur on 11 January, 2018 (indiankanoon.org)

BOOK SOURCE:

P.S. KHURANA, “A TREATISE ON LAND LAWS IN PUNJAB AND HARYANA” “5TH EDITION” “PUBLISHED
BY: SHREE RAM LAW HOUSE”