LAWS(P&H)-1992-8-74

HARDEV KAUR Vs. GHAZAL RESTAURANT

Decided On August 18, 1992
HARDEV KAUR Appellant
V/S
GHAZAL RESTAURANT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlords, aggrieved against the order of the Appellate Authority which, on appeal, reversed that of the Rent Controller and dismissed their petition for evicting the tenant-respondents from the premises, have come up in revision to this Court.

(2.) THE revision petition initially came up for hearing before me sitting singly. On behalf of the tenant-respondents, it was canvassed that a landlord could increase rent by agreement and any increase so made could be legally recovered. The lessor could only recover fair rent from the lessee and in support of this submission, reliance was placed upon a Single Bench decision of this Court in Makhan Lal v. Anand Parkash, 1986 H. R. R. 358. I doubted the correctness of the submission made and requested my Lord the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench for deciding the point arising for adjudication in this petition [ also directed that the revision petition be disposed of by the larger Bench. It is how this petition has been placed before us for disposal.

(3.) THE landlord-petitioners leased out ground floor of Shop Cum- Office No. 189-190-191, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh to the lessee-respondents under lease deed dated November 3, 1980, Ex. A-1, on payment of monthly tent of Rs. 9000/- The tenancy was to commence from October 1, 1980. The eviction was sought on the ground that the lessees were in arrears of rent since February 1, 1984. The eviction petition was filed before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh on June 2, 1984. After the service of notice, the lessee appeared before the Rent Controller on August 1, 1984 and the Kent Controller assessed Rs. 80/- as costs of the petition and the lessees' counsel made the following statement:-"i tender a sum of Rs. 39600/- as arrears of rent from 1-2-1984 to 31-5-84 at the rate of Rs. 9900/- p. m. , Rs. 700/- as = interest and Rs. 80/- as costs total amonting to Rs. 40380/ -. " The counsel for the lessors accepted the tender under protest on the ground that it was insufficient.