AMARJIT SINGH Vs. ALAMJIT SINGH MANN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in this revision is "whether in an appeal against an order of eviction passed upon non-payment of arrears of rent, the appellate authority can stay dispossession of the tenant on payment of some part of arrears of rent or the entire rent as ordered by the Rent Controller is to he paid/deposited?" The landlords are in revision against the order of the Appellate Authority dated 3.11.2011 by which order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller dated 28.9.2011 has been stayed subject to deposit of 30% of the arrears of rent.

(2.) In brief, according to the case of the landlord, basement and ground floor of SCO No. 483-484, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh (for short 'demised premises') comprising of an area of approximately 3700 Sq. ft. was let out to the tenant, who is running a restaurant in the name and style of "Memorable Moments" for a period of 5 years w.e.f. 1.7.2002 to 30.6.2007 at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,20,000/- with increase of 8% compounded after every year. Accordingly, the lease had started from 28.6.2002 and the rent was to be paid as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_417_RCR(RENT)1_2012_1.html</FRM>

(3.) The landlord filed a petition for eviction under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') on the ground that the tenant has stopped making payment of rent w.e.f. 1.11.2003 onwards. In the written statement, it was alleged that the demised premises has been resumed by the Chandigarh Administration on 19.12.1996, "who had directed the tenant, vide its letter dated 17.11.2004, to deposit the rent with the Estate Office. He has challenged the registered lease deed dated 28.6.2002 by way of Civil Suit on the ground that it is a result of misrepresentation and has sought mandatory injunction directing the landlord to fix the proper rent and adjust the excess payment made. It was further alleged that the rate of rent of the demised premises was Rs. 25,000/- per month as per compromise between the parties and the rate of rent as alleged by the landlord in the aforesaid chart was denied. It was denied that there was a stipulation of an increase by 8% per annum compounded every year. It is denied that rent is due w.e.f. 1.11.2003. It was also alleged in the counter-claim that order of resumption passed by Chandigarh Administration dated 19.12.1996 was due to building violations by the landlords which was not disclosed at the time when the demised Premises was let out. The tenant had also filed a criminal complaint under Section 420/34 IPC against the landlords in this regard. In replication, it was averred that the order of resumption dated 19.12.1996 is set aside and the tenant has not deposited even a single penny in the Estate Office in terms of the alleged letter dated 26.7.2004. It was alleged that the tenant wanted to enjoy the possession of demised premises without payment of any rent. From the pleadings of the parties issues were framed and both the parties led their respective oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their case. The learned Rent Controller had observed that-