(1.) Challenge in the present revision petition, filed by the petitionerlandlady, is to the order dated 13.02.2014 (Annexure P1), whereby the Rent Controller, Malerkotla has adjourned to the case for filing reply to the application for recalling the order dated 14.01.2014 (Annexure P9), vide which, provisional rent was assessed at Rs. 13,03,320/-.
(2.) A perusal of the paperbook would go on to show that the landlady had filed an eviction petition for ejectment of the respondent-tenant on the ground that there were arrears of rent from 01.06.2007 upto 31.12.2011, to the tune of Rs. 10,84,250/- as per the rent note dated 04.04.2007 and only a sum of Rs. 7,80,300/- had been paid and apart from that amount, even house tax amounting to Rs. 1,93,494/- was due. Written statement was filed by the respondent-tenant whereby it was pleaded that he was ready to pay the rent to whomsoever the Court may direct, after assessment. The liability to pay the house tax was, however, denied. It was pleaded that Charanjit Singh was necessary party and the petition was not maintainable in his absence.
(3.) Vide order dated 14.01.2014, the Rent Controller assessed the outstanding arrears of rent at Rs. 8,65,504/- plus house tax, interest and costs, totalling to Rs. 13,03,320/- and fixed the case for 13.02.2014 for tendering the rent by the respondent-tenant. Charanjit Singh Bajaj also filed an application for impleadment as co-petitioner, on the said date. Instead of tendering the rent on the date fixed, i.e., 13.02.2014, the respondent-tenant filed an application for recall of the order on the ground that Charanjit Singh was claiming to be the landlord and the rent assessed deserve to be recalled as it would create multiplicity of litigation. Accordingly, rent was not tendered by the respondenttenant and the case was adjourned to 31.03.2014, for filing reply to the application and one filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. Resultantly, the said order has been challenged by the petitioner-landlady.