SURAJ PARKASH Vs. BALJIT SINGH JEJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Atul Jain, Advocate, has caused appearance on behalf of respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Rent Controller, Patiala, while passing the impugned order dated 4.6.2009 (Annexure P6), has committed a grave error in determining the provisional rent as ` 3,350/- per month. He further submits that the rate of rent was ` 1,800/- per month, as per the rent note dated 27.3.1989 and ` 1,350/- was the rent for another shop. Whereas the case of the landlord is that ` 3,350/- was the rent of the premises in dispute.

(2.) The Rent Controller, vide impugned order (Annexure P6), has assessed the rent as ` 3,350/- per month commencing from 1.7.2004 to 31.3.2008 i.e. for a period of 45 month.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the impugned order (Annexure P6), passed by the Rent Controller, can be modified to the extent that the tenant shall pay the rent at the rate of `1,800/- per month for a period of 45 months, commencing from 1.7.2004 to 31.3.2008. The Rent Controller shall again work out the interest and costs and the total amount which is payable by the tenant at the rate of ` 1,800/- per month. The parties shall be at liberty to lead their evidence for determination of the rate of rent. In case, the Rent Controller, after the parties conclude their evidence, comes to the conclusion that the rate of rent was ` 3,350/- per month, the tenant shall make the deficiency good. The Rent Controller is further directed to adjudicate and decide the eviction petition within a period of nine months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. With the observations made above, the present revision petition is disposed of.