A.R. VENTURES Vs. ROOP SQUARE PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This shall dispose of above mentioned four revision petitions filed by the tenant qua two premises upon which he entered as a tenant w.e.f. 15/1/2017 under two separate agreements dtd. 1/12/2016. The main facts are being taken from CR No. 8023 of 2019.

(2.) The common gamut of facts; as can be culled out from the pleadings of the parties are that; the respondent is the owner of the two properties mentioned in the petition; situated in the buildings of M/s Roop Square Private Limited (known as Roop Square Complex), Ghumar Mandi, Mahal Baghat, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. The petitioner had taken the top floor and the 4th floor of the premises on rent from the respondent/landlord vide two separate written agreements dtd. 1/12/2016. The rent for the top floor was agreed at the rate of Rs. One lakh per month along with 5% increase per annum. The rent for the 4th floor was agreed to be Rs. 4 lakhs per month with a similar increase of 5% per annum. The duration of the said tenancy was fixed to be nine years. As per the allegations, the petitioner paid the rent for 5 months with intermittent defaults in case of premises on top floor and thereafter, defaulted in payments. Almost similar has been the position qua the 4th floor. The respondent/landlord alleges that he had verbally requested the petitioner for making the payment of defaulted amount. After request, some payments were made. However, again, the default was started and is still continuing. As a result, no rent is being paid to the respondent/landlord. Although the petitioner as a tenant is enjoying the property, however, he has not been paying even the electricity charges or any other taxes and charges leviable by the Government. On the contrary, the respondent/landlord is being forced to pay the GST leviable on the rent, electricity charges and other charges leviable by the Government. As a result, the respondent/landlord had filed two separate petitions under the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (in short 'the Act'), for recovery of possession from the petitioner for non payment of rent; as well as, claiming his personal requirement so as to expand his business. The petitioner/tenant appeared before the Rent Authority and filed the written statement. However, the petitioner also filed application stating the same to be under Sec. 20 (2) of the Act, in which it was prayed that since the respondent/landlord had not given him the notice in the prescribed form as required by Sec. 20 (2) of the Act, therefore, the eviction petitions itself were not maintainable and, therefore, deserved to be rejected. But the Rent Authority dismissed the same in both the petitions vide order dtd. 26/10/2018.

(3.) However, since the petitioner/tenant had also filed the written statements, therefore, taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Authority framed the issues for its determination vide order dtd. 14/3/2019.