BAL MUKAND AGGARWAL Vs. SUSHMA MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner suffered an order of ejectment from the demised premises on his failure to deposit the rent as assessed by the Rent Controller vide order dated 20.05.2014 which reads as follows:-

(2.) Heard. Burden to prove the rate of rent is upon the petitioner. But no rent deed has been produced by the petitioner. On the other hand it is admitted by the petitioner that respondents are their tenants. Hence in the absence of any document regarding tenancy it cannot be presumed that the shop in question was let out to respondent at the rate of Rs.2500/- per month and thereafter same was enhanced from Rs.2500/- to 4000/- per month. On the other hand contention of Ld counsel for respondent that rate of rent was Rs.400/- per annum is also not acceptable because in these days, the rate of market value of everything is going increase day by day and Rs.400/- is not sufficient for the landlord to survive, who has let out the shop to the respondent. So in view of present market rate, rate of rent is assessed as Rs.1000/- per month. On the other hand payment of rent is required to be establish by the respondent. As per record placed on file by the respondent, he paid the rent at the rate of Rs.400/- per annum to the previous owner and receipts were also issued by previous owner in favour of respondent No.3 but the respondent no.3 also admits in his reply as well as in application dated 16.4.2014 that he had not paid rent after 01.04.1990 to the previous landlord nor the same has not been accepted by the previous landlord. So there is no dispute regarding the time of arrears of rent. So keeping in view the abovesaid discussion, the provisional rent is hereby assessed at Rs.1000/- per month with effect from 01.04.1990 till 01.05.2014 alongwith interest @ 6% P.A. Costs of petition is assessed Rs.1000/-. However, anything stated or observed above, shall have no bearing on the ultimate decision of the petition on merits. The calculation of provisional rent is as under:-. <FRM>JUDGEMENT_9_LAWS(P&H)11_2014_1.html</FRM>

(3.) The perusal of above order reveals that the respondentslandlord sought the ejectment of the revision petitioner from demised premises claiming the settled rent @ Rs. 2,500 per month, which was enhanced from time to time and was @ Rs. 4,000 per month at the time of filing of the petition. The petitioner-tenant claimed the tenancy in the demised premises @ Rs. 400 per annum. It was alleged that the shop in dispute was let out to Bal Iron and Steel Company, Iron Merchant and Commission Agent, Mandi Gobindgarh through its proprietor Bal Mukand Aggarwal (revision petitioner) in the year 1963 by owner of premises Smt. Shanti Devi, who had been receiving rent @ Rs. 400 per annum from 01.04.1963 to 31.03.1990. The payment of the rent was duly reflected in the account books of the company. It was denied by the petitioner-tenant that the rent was ever fixed @ Rs. 2,500 per month and thereafter enhanced to Rs. 4000 per month.