Kailash Wati vs Surinder Kumar Gupta

J.V. Gupta, C.J.—This revision petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller dated August 25,1988, whereby the application filed by the tenant u/s 19 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter called the Act), was allowed and the sanction was granted to the tenant to file a complaint against his landlady.

The tenant Surinder Kumar filed an application for getting necessary permission to file the complaint against the landlady u/s 19 of the Act, alleging that he was the tenant on the shop at a monthly rent of Rs. 250/-. The landlady filed the application for ejectment from the above said shop on the ground of non -payment of rent for the following periods. April and July, 1983; April, 1984; January, May and October, 1985, and January, 1986 to the date of filing of the application. The tenant, according to him, to avoid his ejectment, tendered a sum, of Rs. 3,(sic)50/- as rent for 13 months and Rs. 85/-as interest and Rs. 60/- as costs as assessed by the Court which were duly accepted by the landlady and consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed as infructuous. No finding as such was given as to whether the tenant was in arrears of rent or not. According to the tenant, since the landlady had demanded and received the rent twice for the same period, she was liable to be prosecuted. In the reply filed on behalf of the landlady, she denied that she ever received the rent twice for the said period as alleged. She also pleaded that the application as such was not maintainable The learned Rent Controller after framing the issues came to the conclusion that since the landlady had received the rent for the month of December, 1985, so it was presumed that she bad received the rent for the period prior to December, 1985. On that presumption, it was held that she had already received the rent for six months, as alleged and therefore, according to the learned Rent Controller, it was a case of double payment. Consequently he granted the necessary permission as contemplated u/s 19 of the Act, for violation of Section 9 of the Act.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the finding of the Kent Controller is based on presumptions Since the rent was being paid monthly through cheques by the tenant, the said presumption, if any, was not available to the tenant When the landlady found that the cheque for the said months was not deposited, she claimed the rent by way of arrears which were duly tendered by the tenant without any protest. In any case, argued the learned counsel, the provisions of Section 19 were not at all attracted, nor there was any violation of Section 9 of the Act, as alleged by the tenant. Since there was no violation of sub section (2) of Section 9, the provisions of Section 19 were not attracted.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in this petition

Section 19 of the Act inter alia, provides that if any person contravenes any of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 9, sub-section (I) of Section 10, Section 11 or Section 18 he shall be punishable with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees Sub-section (2) of Section 9, reads as under :-

"Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force or any contract, no landlord shall recover from his tenant the amount of any tax or any portion thereof in respect of any building or rented land occupied by suck tenant by any increase in the amount of the rent payable or otherwise, save as provided in sub-section (1)."

Thus, the question of alleged double payment, if any, is not contemplated by Section 9 at all. If there was no violation of sub-section (?) of Section (9), the provisions of Section 19 could not be invoked. As a matter of fact, it is Section 8 of the Act, which provides that the rent which should not have been paid may be recovered, but Section 19 does not contemplate any violation of Section 8 for which any penalty could be imposed on the landlord.

Consequently, this revision petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the application u/s 19 is dismissed with no order as to costs.