KULDEEP SINGH Vs. ARUN KATARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the instant revision petition, the petitioner-tenant (for short 'the tenant') has laid challenge to the order dtd. 19/10/2022 (Annexure P-6) whereby learned Rent Controller, Gurugram has assessed the provisional rent in respect of the demised premises, as Rs.41.00 lac and he has also assailed the order dtd. 15/11/2022 (Annexure P-8) handed down by learned Additional District Judge, Gurugram, dismissing the appeal as preferred by him (tenant) against order Annexure P-6.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant, at the preliminary stage, in the present revision petition and have also perused the file carefully.

(3.) Learned counsel for the tenant contends that vide the rent note Annexure P-1 as executed between the parties, the area measuring 3545 Sq. Yards had been let out to the tenant but subsequently, the respondent landlord (for short 'the landlord') has encroached upon the said area by raising the building thereon for running a Mall and now, the tenant is left in the possession over the area measuring 2061 Sq. Feet only, as reflected in the Property Tax Bill Annexure P-9 issued by the Municipal Corporation, Gurugram for the year 2021-22 but the Rent Controller has assessed the provisional rent for the entire area as mentioned in the said rent-note and moreover, the demised premises had been sealed by the Municipal Corporation on the ground that the requisite 'No Objection Certificate' had not been obtained from its Fire Brigade Branch in respect thereof and since then, the tenant has not been able to use the said premises and the abovesaid Certificate could not be obtained due to the lapse on the part of the landlord to comply with the prescribed procedure for the same and therefore, the tenant could not be fastened with the liability to pay the rent for the period subsequent to the sealing of the said premises and in these circumstances, both the impugned orders are not legally sustainable and deserve to be set-aside.