VIMAL JINDAL Vs. SURENDER SINGH DHILLON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order CR-2095-2016 and CR-2096-2016, arising between the same parties shall stand disposed of.

(2.) After having heard the learned counsel representing the parties at a sufficient length, this Court is of the considered view that the matter is required to be remitted to the Appellate Authority, to consider the effect of the notice served by one of the landlords calling upon the tenant, to increase the rent. In the considered opinion of the Court, neither the learned Rent Controller nor the Appellate Authority has examined the issue in proper perspective. Some peculiar facts are required to be noticed.

(3.) The respondents leased two separate premises to the petitioner, for a period of 10 years. In the first petition, the tenanted premises is ' portion of the ground floor of SCO No.3015-3016, Sector 22D, Chandigarh, whereas, in the second petition, the tenanted premises is a complete basement of SCO No.3015-3016, Sector 22D, Chandigarh. The period of lease had to expire on 30/4/2010. The landlord sent a notice to the tenant on 20/1/2010, with a request to vacate the tenanted premises. Subsequently, on 19/2/2010, one of the landlords sent another notice calling upon the tenant to discuss the matter with his partners and let the landlords know if their offer for the payment of prevailing market rent is acceptable to the tenant and his partners or not. The eviction petition was filed on 25/5/2010, by the landlords.