RAMESHWAR DAYAL SHARMA Vs. JAGPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT -

(2.) I have heard the parties. In this case, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Additional RentController under Section 15(1) to the extent that Court below by presuming that initially two rooms were let out, out of which the petitioner is now in possession of only one room has fallen into serious error. Counsel has vehemently argued that if it is a consolidated rent for the entire premises, then the entire rent abates and no part of rent could be recovered by the landlord. This argument was raised in an earlier case entitled Mis. Ved Rattan and Brothers v. Janak Raj, reported as 1979 (1) RCR 106 wherein the plea of the tenant, deemed to be a defaulter, was not accepted by the Court, but after considering the law on the subject, the Court upheld that even in the case were landlord took for cible possession of apart of the premises and the tenant stopped paying rent, the Controller could order tenant to pay proportionate rent even though he cannot eject the tenant on the ground of non payment of rent. The question has arisen earlier in the case of. Hakim Sardar Bahadur v. Tej Parkash Singh, reported as 1962 Punjab Law Reporter 538 wherein the Court has gone into the question of abatement of rent with reference to the English law and the agricultural leases and has referred to some cases, "Had not accepted the Madras view expressed in few cases referred to therein that the tenant could not stop payment of rent until the landlord again permits him to have quite enjoyment in the premises". In the present case, there appears to be a serious conflict as to whether only one room was let outer two rooms. I have been shown the statements recorded by the Criminal Court on behalf of the petitioner wherein his own witness has stated that the petitioner was always in occupation of one room. I leave this question for the Trial Court to decide after recording evidence. Nevertheless, I think that only just view to be taken in this case would be the one that was taken in the case of M/s. Ved Rattan and Brothers v. Janak Raj (supra) and the ratio of that case would apply to the present case also.