RAMANAND SHASTRI Vs. GIAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under sub-section (5) of Section 15 of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, is directed against the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below that the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties and the landlord-respondent has rented the demised premises to the tenant-petitioner @ Rs. 800/- p.m. and he has failed to pay the rent w.e.f. 1.4.1987. It has further been held that the tenant-petitioner has made additions and alterations causing material impairment to the value and utility of the premises. The views of the Appellate Authority while affirming the findings of facts recorded by the Rent Controller read as under :

(2.) I have heard Shri Ashok Pruthi, learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner who has argued that in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and others, 2002(1) RCR 514 (SC) : (2002) 5 SCC 440, the Rent Controller should have made an interim assessment for payment of rent to the landlord-respondent. In the absence of assessment order framed by the Rent Controller, the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan (supra) would stand violated. The learned counsel has also made an attempt to persuade me to accept the view that the landlord-respondent was not his landlord and the property in dispute is now owned and possessed by the Wakf Board.

(3.) IN view of the above, nothing could be said that the property has been handed over by the tenant-petitioner to the landlord-respondent for its onward submission of possession to the Wakf Board. No document has been placed on record to that effect. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the second submission made by the learned counsel. The appeal is without merit and is thus liable to be dismissed. For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.