PARSHOTAM DAS GOEL Vs. RAJENDER JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition filed by the landlord is directed against the order dated 28.11.2011 of re-assessment of provisional rent by the Rent Controller, Safidon. The petitioner-landlord filed an application under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for brevity, the "Act") for eviction of the respondent-tenant from a single storey shop along with chabutra situated near Muthoot Cooperative Bank, Canal Bridge, Safidon City, Distt. Jind, the boundaries of which were given in the headnote of the ejectment application.

(2.) The Rent Controller, Safidon, vide order dated 31.10.2011 after taking into consideration the assertions of the landlord that the rate of rent was Rs. 9,000/- per month and the tenant was in arrears of rent since February, 2009 and the defence of the tenant was that the rate of rent was Rs. 4,000/- per month and the dues were only for the last 2 months, came to the conclusion that the rate of rent was Rs. 5,000/- per month and the tenant was in dues from February, 2009 up to September, 2011 and thus assessed a sum of Rs. 1,55,000/- as provisional rent till date along with interest @ 9% per annum and cost of Rs. 1,000/-. Accordingly, the respondent-tenant was directed to tender the arrears of rent along with interest on or before 14.11.2011. Instead of tendering the rent, the tenant filed an application dated 14.11.2011 for re-assessment of the provisional rent on the ground that it was very excessive from the prevailing market rate and the shops of Municipal Committee, Safidon were new ones and rate of rent was only Rs. 2,700/- per month. Therefore, the provisional rent was liable to be reassessed and accordingly, it was pleaded that there was no proof of rent and the landlord had initially pleaded that the rent was Rs. 9,000/- per month but evidence of Rs. 2,700/- per month had been produced and the applicant was only earning Rs. 6,000/- per month and was not in condition to pay the excessive rent, and therefore, the rent should be re-assessed. The application was contested and it was contended that it was not maintainable and there was no provision under the Act for re-assessment and the Court had decided the provisional rent at Rs. 5,000/- per month after taking into consideration background of Municipal Committee, house tax etc. and various instances of tenants paying Rs. 3,000/- to 3,500/- per month was given in the reply and that the Municipal Committee has taken Rs. 3 lacs as security, and therefore, the rate of provisional rent was rightly assessed. The Rent Controller, Safidon, on the said application, came to the conclusion that in order to do justice between the parties, which had inherent powers to re-assess and placed reliance upon Sanjay Sharma and another v. Ajmer Singh and another, 2007 3 CivCC 47 re-assessed the rent at Rs. 2,800/- per month payable with effect from February, 2009 upto date with interest @ 9% and costs of Rs. 1,000/- and directed to tender the re-assessed rent by 01.12.2011 vide impugned order dated 28.11.2011 which is now the subject matter of challenge.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner-landlord has contended that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to pass such an order and once the rent had not been tendered, ejectment had to follow automatically and the Rent Controller had no power to re-assess and grant extension to the tenant. On the other hand, counsel for the tenant has contended that the Rent Controller had rightly exercised jurisdiction and it had inherent powers and reliance was placed upon Sanjay Sharma's case . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan v. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, 2002 AIR(SC) 2004 has laid down these principles wherein it was held that after the provisional order of assessment of rent, the tenant must pay on the first date of hearing after passing of such an order and on the failure of the tenant in doing so, nothing remains to be done and eviction should follow and there can be variance only at the final stage by the Rent Controller. This view was further reiterated in Vinod Kumar v. Prem Lata, 2003 2 RCR(Rent) 329. There was a divergent view expressed by this Court in Rajinder Lal v. Gopal Krishan, 2006 143 PunLR 124. However, a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Rajan @ Raj Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar, 2010 158 PunLR 201 has held that once the provisional rent has been assessed and the tenant objects to pay the arrears of provisional rent, then the order of ejectment has to be passed as nothing else remains. It was also laid down that the tenant, if he was dissatisfied with the order passed by the Rent Controller, he has a liberty to challenge the same before the date fixed before a higher forum. Relevant part of the judgment reads as under: