UPMA KAKKAR Vs. VEENA AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is impugning the order dtd. 10/5/2022 (Annexure P-1) vide which the Rent Controller declined to assess the provisional rent on the ground that there is no landlord and tenant relationship between the parties.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Rent Controller gravely erred while declining the assessment of provisional rent by failing to appreciate that the relationship between the parties stood duly proved from the notarized rent deed (Annexure P-2) dtd. 4/7/2019. Therefore, in the light of the said rent deed the denial by the tenantrespondent of there being no landlord-tenant relationship would be of no consequence. He submits that the denial by the respondent-tenant qua the existence of a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was with an oblique motive, so as to avoid the assessment of provisional rent and also to continue enjoying the demised premises without having to pay the arrears of rent. Learned counsel still further submits that the malafides on the part of the respondent-tenant is evident from the fact that in her written statement the rate of rent was stated to be Rs.60,000.00 per month, which in fact was contrary to the agreed rate of rent of Rs.3,60,000.00 per month as mentioned in the rent deed, duly executed between the parties. He further submits that the legal notice (Annexure P-9) dtd. 11/6/2020, which had been sent by the respondent was only to frustrate the case of the petitioner landlord and though the respondent had averred that she had vacated the demised premises and handed over its vacant possession to the petitioner, however, there was nothing on record to substantiate the said fact. He vehemently argued that though the petitioner had categorically denied receiving the vacant possession of the demised premises in her rejoinder, however, the Rent Controller had gravely erred in failing to take note of the same and not assessing the provisional rent payable to the petitioner. Learned counsel asserted that the respondent was in arrears of rent amounting to Rs.1,36,51,815.00 from 16/8/2019 to 15/7/2022 for which even a suit for recovery had been instituted by her. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Coordinate Bench in Shri Sai Enterprises vs. M/s Gallant Arcade Pvt. Ltd., 2013(3) RCR (Civil) 582 and Piyush Gupta and another vs. Sanjiv Sharma and others (CR No.855 of 2016) decided on 29/2/2016.

(3.) Heard learned counsel and perused the relevant material available on record.