Surinder Gupta vs Shri Moti Lal

Alok Singh, J.—Landlord is assailing order dated 2.11.2010 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, thereby directing the tenant to deposit the rent from 1.4.2009 @ Rs. 11,500/- per month along with interest.

The grievance of the Petitioner/landlord is that of course initially rent was Rs. 8,000/-per month in addition to electricity charges and other taxes like house tax and service tax, however, rent was increased from time to time and from the month of March, rent was settled @ Rs. 22,000/-per month, hence learned Rent Controller was not within its jurisdiction to direct the tenant to deposit the rent @ Rs. 11,500/-and learned Rent Controller ought to have directed the tenant to pay the rent @ Rs. 22,000/- per month.

In the eviction petition, landlord has pleaded in paragraph No. 2 as under :

That the Respondent was inducted as a tenant in Booth No. 269, Bardana Market, Sector 26, Chandigarh, in May, 2002 on a monthly rent of Rs. 8000/-per month in addition to electricity charges and other taxes like house tax and service tax. The rent was increased from time to time and in the month of March the rent was settled at Rs. 22,000/-per month under an oral agreement of lease. The Respondent paid the rent for the month of March on 7th of March, 2009 against receipt and counter file was signed by him. The copy of the receipt is attached herewith as Annexure-A.

In the written statement tenant/Respondent in paragraph No. 2 has contended as under :

That the contents of para No. 2 of the petition is wrong and denied. However, true facts is that the tenanted premises in question was taken on rent and the same was increased time to time and the answering Respondent has paid the rent against the proper receipt. The copies of the receipt are attached herewith as Annexure R-1 to R-5 and at the time of taking the tenanted premises on rent the answering Respondent has also deposited the sum of Rs. 22,000/-as security amount which is mentioned in the lease deed. It is pertinent to mention here that on dated 07.03.2009 the Petitioner came to the shop of the Respondent and demanded the advance rent from the month of March and April 2009 and the Petitioner requested that he is required the such amount urgently and assured that he will not demand the rent from the month of April 2009. On this Respondent requested that he has spent of Rs. 1,000/-on minor repair and then the Petitioner considered the request and directed the Respondent to deduct the said Rs. 1,000/-from the advance rent for 2 months i.e. Rs. 23,000/-and demanded the remaining Rs. 22,000/-as the same was urgently required to the Petitioner. Then, the Respondent paid a sum of Rs. 22,000/-and the Petitioner obtained the signature on the blank paper and thereafter same has been misused and prepared the forged receipt which is annexed with the petition and the Petitioner has committed the offence under the provisions of IPC. When the Respondent demanded the receipt of the same, then he disclosed that he will obtained the Photostat copy and then will issue the said receipt tomorrow and thereafter again on 8.3.2009, the Respondent requested the Petitioner to issue the receipt for the said sum which has been paid in advance rent to Petitioner upto the month of April 2009, then on the demand of said receipt the Petitioner threatened that he will not issue the said receipt and further threatened to Respondent vacate the demised premises within 15 days then the Respondent has filed civil suit for injunction and after receive the summon from the court the Petitioner has prepared the forged receipt and file an present petition on the vague grounds. It is further stated that the rate of rent presently is Rs. 11,500/-per month and the Petitioner has issued the receipt for the same shown in Annexure R-1 to R-5 but the Petitioner has wrongly claim the rate of rent and period from April 2009 instead of May, 2009 and further wrongly mentioned the rate of rent Rs. 22,000/-per month instead of Rs. 11,500/-per month. Even the answering Respondent approached to the Petitioner to receive the advance rent for the month of May 2009 against the proper receipt but the Petitioner has refused to accept the same and further threatened that he will claim the huge rate of rent by preparing the forge receipt which was obtained in blank signed from the Respondent. Even the Respondent has requested to the Petitioner many time to accept the rent then he refuse to accept the same. Ultimately the Respondent has sent the rent time to time through money order against the proper receipt but same has not been received by the Petitioner. The copies of the postal receipt are attached herewith R-6 to R-10. The Petitioner has filed the present rent petition without any cause and action. The Respondent is ready to tender the rent w.e.f. April 2009 @ Rs. 11,500/-to till today just to avoid the eviction and also filing the counter claim for return of access rent for the month of April 2009 which was already paid by the Respondent. It is further stated that the earlier petition has been dismissed default which was filed by the Petitioner on the same grounds and the Respondent has filed an written statement alongwith counter claim and now the Respondent is going to file an application for restore of counter claim.

From the perusal of paragraph No. 2 of the eviction petition as well as from the written statement, it is revealed that landlord''s case is that w.e.f. March, 2009 enhanced rent was agreed @ Rs. 22,000/-per month while case set up by the tenant is that landlord has received Rs. 22,000/-as advance rent from the tenant after deducting repair charges and assured the tenant to issue receipt thereafter and has obtained the signatures of the tenant. Further case of the tenant is that Rs. 22,000/-per month rent was never agreed upon and landlord has fabricated and manufactured the receipt showing the enhanced rent @ Rs.22,000/- per month.

Hon''ble Apex Court in the matter of Rakesh Wadhawan and Others Vs. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and Others, in paragraph No. 30 has observed as under : -

To sum up, our conclusions are :

In Section 13(2)(i) proviso, the words ''assessed by the Controller'' qualify not merely the words ''the cost of application'' but the entire preceding part of the sentence i.e. ''the arrears of rent and interest at six per cent per annum on such arrears together with the cost of application''.

The proviso to Section 13(2)(i) of East Punjab Urban Restriction Act, 1949 casts an obligation on the Controller to make an assessment of (i) arrears of rent (ii) the interest on such arrears, and (iii) the cost of application and then quantify by way of an interim or provisional order the amount which the tenant must pay or tender on the ''first date of hearing'' after the passing of such order of ''assessment'' by the Controller so as to satisfy the requirement of the proviso.

Of necessity, ''the date of first hearing of the application'' would mean the date falling after the date of such order by Controller.

On the failure of the tenant to comply, nothing remains to be done and an order for eviction shall follow. If the tenant makes compliance, the inquiry shall continue for finally adjudicating upon the dispute as to the arrears of rent in the light of the contending pleas raised by the landlord and the tenant before the Controller.

If the final adjudication by the Controller be at variance with his interim or provisional order passed under the proviso, one of the following two orders may be made depending on the facts situation of a given case. If the amount deposited by the tenant is found to be in excess, the Controller may direct a refund. If, on the other hand, the amount deposited by the tenant is found to be short or deficient, the Controller may pass a conditional order directing tenant to place the landlord in possession of the premises by giving a reasonable time to the tenant for paying or tendering the deficit amount, failing which alone he shall be liable to be evicted. Compliance shall save him from eviction.

While exercising discretion for affording the tenant an opportunity of making good the deficit, one of the relevant factors to be taken into consideration by the Controller would be, whether the tenant has paid or tendered with substantial regularity the rent falling due month by month during the pendency of the proceedings.

From the perusal of Sub-para 5 of Para 30 of the Rakesh Wadhawan''s case (supra), I find that if ultimately Rent Controller comes to the conclusion that rate was agreed to be enhanced @ Rs.22,000/-per month as alleged by the landlord, then Rent Controller can pass appropriate order directing the tenant to pay the balance amount, however, at this stage merely on the basis of one receipt which is highly disputed by the tenant, learned Rent Controller seems to be well within its jurisdiction assessing the rent @ Rs. 11,500/- per month.

No interference is called for.

Dismissed.