ISWHAR DASS Vs. SANJIV KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 18.3.2010 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Faridabad by which order of eviction dated 22.1.2010 passed by the Rent Controller has been set aside.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/landlord filed an eviction petition against the respondent/tenant, inter-alia, on the ground of non-payment of rent. The eviction petition was contested by the respondent/tenant by filing written statement in which it was alleged that the rent of the demised premises is Rs. 2000/- per month and the petitioner is not the landlord as the demised premises is owned by his wife. Since the petitioner had claimed the rent @ Rs. 7000/- per month and the respondent had alleged that the rent was Rs. 2000/- per month, the Rent Controller vide his order dated 19.11.2009 called for the report of the Tehsildar of the area concerned with regard to the rate of rent in the surrounding area having two rooms on the ground floor, an accommodation of a similar nature and condition. The Tehsildar vide his report dated 29.11.2009, submitted that similar accommodation would fetch rent of Rs. 3000/- per month. The Rent Controller neither accepted the rent claimed by the landlord nor by the tenant and even assessed by the Tehsildar, rather the rent was assessed by the Rent Controller himself @ Rs. 3800/- per month and on the basis thereof, the amount payable was assessed at Rs. 1,08,691/- which was ordered to be paid on or before 22.12.2009. The order passed by the Rent Controller on 11.12.2009 reads thus:-

(3.) Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the tenant filed a revision petition bearing CR No. 7586 of 2009 in this Court in which he had raised two grievances, firstly, that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as it was alleged that he is a tenant of the wife of the present petitioner who is the owner of the demised premises and secondly, the rate of rent was Rs. 2000/- per month which has been erroneously assessed at the rate of Rs. 3800/- per month. In support of his first contention, the tenant/respondent had relied upon three decisions of this Court in the cases of Yashpal Singla v. Vijay Kumar, 2004 138 PunLR 504, Narinder Singh v. Sarbjit Singh, 2007 146 PunLR 405 and Mrs. Preeti v. Manmohan Singh and another, 2008 151 PunLR 591.