SHRI NIWAS GUPTA Vs. PARMOD GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in this revision petition is as to "whether a tenant can seek prosecution of the landlord under Section 22(2) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 [for short "the Act"] if the landlord had recovered arrears of rent beyond a period of 3 years prohibited under Section 13(2)(i) 3rd proviso of the Act or the landlord is liable for penalty only if there is a violation of Section 6(a) of the Act"?

(2.) In brief, the demised premises (shop) was let out to the tenant by father of the landlord on 01.08.1975 at a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- apart from house tax. Fair rent of the demised premises was fixed in terms of Section 4 @ Rs. 558.40/- vide order dated 08.11.2000 and the landlord received the enhanced rent according to fair rent up to 30.06.2001. Thereafter, fair rent was again determined @ Rs. 623/- per month which was received by the landlord up to 31.05.2003. The landlord then filed petition bearing No. 32 of 06.06.2007 in order to claim fair rent of the demised premises @ Rs. 623/- per month w.e.f. 01.06.2003. In this petition, the tenant tendered rent for a period of 38 months preceding the date of petition i.e. 06.06.2007 w.e.f. 01.06.2003 to 31.07.2007 total amounting to Rs. 30,212/-, but despite receiving the rent up to 31.07.2007, the landlord claimed another sum of Rs. 9,600/- for one year extra which was paid by the tenant to the landlord on 17.09.2007. The tenant then filed an application to the Rent Controller for lodging a complaint to the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Narwana for prosecution of the landlord in terms of Section 22(3)(b) of the Act for violation of Section 6(a) read with Section 13(2)(i) of the Act or for granting sanction to sue the landlord in terms of Section 22(3)(a) of the Act for committing an offence by receiving extra amount of Rs. 9,600/- over and above the fair rent. This application has been dismissed by the learned Rent Controller vide its impugned order dated 29.07.2010 resulting into the present revision petition.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that a landlord cannot claim anything in excess of fair rent and if he does so, he makes himself liable for prosecution in terms of the provisions of Section 22(2) & (3) of the Act. He has further submitted that the fair rent was assessed by the Rent Controller @ Rs. 623/- per month which was paid for preceding 38 months amounting to Rs. 30,212/-, but still the landlord had claimed another sum of Rs. 9,600/- for one year extra which had to be paid by the tenant under pressure on 17.09.2007, therefore, he had violated the provisions of Section 6(a) of the Act for which the learned Rent Controller should have allowed his application for either granting permission to sue or himself to lodged a complaint, but the learned Rent Controller has committed a patent error of law in dismissing the application on the ground that the tenant at the most cannot recover the rent for more than a period of 3 years which is prohibited under Section 13(2)(i) 3rd proviso but it does not attract penalty under Section 22 of the Act.