CENLUB ENGINEERS Vs. MASTER NIMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent had filed the petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 seeking ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of non-payment of rent. Petitioner, in its reply, denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was further averred that the respondent was not the owner of the property in question. It was averred that the lease deed dated 1.12.1986 was bogus document and was liable to be declared as null and void. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Rent Controller:-

(2.) Rent Controller vide order dated 9.9.2004 allowed the ejectment petition. The said judgment was upheld by the Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 6.12.2004. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner-tenant.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned orders were liable to be set aside as the Rent Controller had failed to assess the provisional rent in terms of decision of the Apex Court in 'Rakesh Wadhawan versus M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, 2002 2 RentLR 36'. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance on 'Gurpreet Singh and another versus Brijinder Bhardwaj and another, 2011 163 PunLR 212to support his arguments that the Rent Controller was duty bound to assess the provisional rent. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that since the petitioner had disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the Rent Controller was not required to assess the provisional rent. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on 'Mrs. Preeti Versus Manmohan Singh and another, 2008 2 RCR(Civ) 185, wherein it was held as under:-