DEVINDER SINGH Vs. JAGDISH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against order dated 25.3.2011 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Bathinda by which while granting stay, petitioner has been asked to pay mesne profit for the use and occupation of the demised premises @ Rs. 3500/- per month together with arrears of rent w.e.f. the year 1999 @ Rs. 1950/-per month. The petitioner has also been directed to pay the rent by 7th of each calendar month, failing which the order of stay would not enure.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') for seeking eviction of the tenant from the demised premises which was alleged to have been let out on rent @ Rs. 1950/- per month including house tax, electricity and water charges etc. w.e.f. 21.5.1999 on the basis of a rent note dated 21.5.1999. The learned Rent Controller vide its order dated 25.10.2010 assessed the provisional rent @ Rs. 1950/- per month from 28.5.1999 till the filing of petition @ 6% interest with cost of Rs. 500/-. Provisional rent was ordered to be paid on 8.11.2010. Admittedly, the tenant did not tender the provisional rent on the date fixed by the Rent Controller rather an application for recalling of the said order was filed. The Rent Controller dismissed the application for recalling of the order of provisional assessment of rent on 8.11.2010 and on the same day passed the order of eviction against which the tenant filed statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority along with a prayer for stay of the impugned order.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the landlord had earlier filed a Civil Suit No. 451 dated 28.10.2002 against the present tenant for recovery of Rs. 83,187/- towards mesne profit for the period 28.10.1999 to 27.10.2002 @ Rs. 1950/- per month and interest @ 12% per annum. The said suit has been dismissed by the learned Civil Court on 18.5.2010 against which, of course, the landlord has already filed an appeal which is pending but in that suit landlord had made a statement which is translated into English as ''it is correct that Devinder Singh had not executed any rent note of the house in question in my favour''. Learned counsel for the petitioner, thus, argued that if the rent note was not executed then the question of rate of rent @ Rs. 1950 does not arise much less the arrears of rent which has been ordered to be paid by the Rent Controller vide its order of assessing the provisional rent, on the non-payment of which he has been ordered to be evicted on 8.11.2010.