Vishal Gupta vs Sairima Dass

Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.—In this revision petition, challenge by the petitioner-tenant has been made to order dated 28.3.2011 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh whereby provisionally assessing rent, costs and interest thereon, he was called upon to make tender of assessed rent by a stipulated date.

Rate of rent as Rs.6,000/- per month is not disputed by the petitioner-tenant but it is claimed that rent up to the month of February, 2009 stood paid and yet another payment of Rs.28,000/- was made by him for repair work of the premises. It is claimed that assessment of arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.1.2006 in the impugned order thus is factually wrong. Counsel for the petitioner-tenant has urged that when the rent already stood paid, the petitioner tenant cannot be forced to pay the same once more.

Counsel for the respondent-landlord, on the other hand, has urged that no payment of rent has been made as claimed by the petitioner. Validity and legality of the impugned order is reiterated.

Hearing has been provided to counsel for the parties while going through the grounds of revision petition and the impugned order. Attending facts and circumstances have also been appraised.

Rate of rent being Rs.6,000/- per month is not in dispute. Claim of the petitioner-tenant is that rent @ Rs.6,000/- has already been paid up to February, 2009 and no order could have been made for making payment of rent once more from 1.1.2006. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that though this plea of payment of rent up to February, 2009 was taken by the petitioner-tenant even before the Rent Controller, no supportive material was produced by the tenant to buttress his claim. Referring to excerpts (Annexure P- 4) of cheque-book, it is claimed that payment of rent used to be made to the landlord through cheques. This cheque-book is of the possession of the petitioner-tenant. There is no certificate from the bank concerned that the cheques allegedly issued by the petitioner-tenant in favour of the landlord had in fact been credited into the account of the landlord. Though no document whatsoever was produced by the petitioner-tenant before the Rent Controller to buttress his claim of payment of rent up to February 2009, even in this present revision petition, no acceptable objective material or document has been produced by the petitioner-tenant to show that rent up to February, 2009 stood paid to the landlord. Even with regard to payment of Rs.28,000/- spent on repair work of the premises, there is no authority or consent of the landlord. This payment as a fact has not been established even prima-facie. It is further important to notice that photocopy of documents which are part of the paper-book had never been made available to the Rent Controller before passing of the impugned order. No reason for this lapse is forthcoming from the petitioner tenant.

There is nothing factually or legally incorrect in the impugned order. However, during the course of evidence, the petitioner-tenant will have opportunity to establish that he paid the rent up to February, 2009. In any case, if tender of rent has been made more than what actually was due, an adjudication is to be made by the Rent Controller. In that eventuality, the petitioner-tenant would get refunds and in case of deficiency, opportunity would be given to the tenant to make good the deficiency.

Finding no merits, the present revision petition is dismissed.