Sukka vs Neeraj Gupta

Jaswant Singh, J.—Petitioner (tenant) has filed the present revision assailing the order dated 11.06.2012 passed by the learned Rent

Controller, Chandigarh whereby arrears of provisional rent were re-assessed at the rate of Rs. 3500/- per month as rent due for the period from

April 21008 till May 2011 along with interest to be paid by 30.07.2012. Learned Counsel for the petitioner (tenant) states that the reassessment at

the revised rate of Rs. 3500/- per month as rent has been erroneously fixed by relying on a forged receipt dated 20.03.2008 (Annexure P-1). She

thus submits that the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner (tenant), this Court is of the view that the plea raised cannot be accepted. It is apparent that in

the eviction petition filed by the respondent (landlord), the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 17.05.2011 had assessed the provisional rent

at the rate of Rs. 700/- per month due for the period w.e.f. April 2008 till 2011 along with interest and costs. The said amount admittedly was paid

by the tenant by the stipulated date. However, the landlord had gone in appeal against the said assessment and the learned Appellate Authority,

Chandigarh vide order dated 25.04.2012 had modified the order by holding that the assessment had to be made at the rate of Rs. 3500/- per

month as rent by relying on the same very receipt as Annexure P-1 herein. The said order of the learned Appellate Authority was upheld by this

Court vide order dated 29.05.2012 in the revision filed by present tenant. It is thus clear that the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh was only

required to reassess the arrears of rent due by adopting the rate of rent per month as Rs. 3500/- per month. This is exactly what has been done by

the learned Rent Controller and the amount found due has been calculated after deducting the arrears of rent paid by the tenant at the rate of Rs.

700/- per month. Still further the present revision has been filed much after the expiry of the stipulated date of payment i.e. 30.07.2012.

It is also not in dispute that as on today, the tenant already stands evicted and the possession of the demised premises handed over to the

landlord. In this view of the matter, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed.