DHARAMDEV Vs. DES RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revision Petition is directed against the order passed the Rent Controller, Narwana, in an application under section 22 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction), Act, 1973, filed by Des Raj respondent-tenant against Dharamdev petitioner-landlord. The respondent alleged in the said application that the fair rent of the demised shop was fixed at Rs. 125/- per month. However, during the proceedings in the ejectment petition filed by the petitioner, the respondent paid a some of Rs. 475/- as house-tax to the petitioner with a view to avoid his ejectment. According to the respondent, the amount so paid was in excess of the fair rent and having charged the same, the petitioner was liable to be prosecuted and punished in view of the provisions of Section 22 of the Haryana Rent Act. The respondent also prayed that the necessary sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner may be granted to him. The petition was contested by the petitioner and he asserted that the respondent was liable to pay the house-tax and as no amount had been paid in excess of the dues. He further pleaded that in earlier proceedings the respondent had filed an application for refund of the house -tax but that matter was dismissed after a compromise had been effected. These please were, however, reputed by the respondent in his replication. The learned Rent Controller considered the respective stands of the parties and held that the petitioner was liable to be prosecuted under section 22 of the Rent Act for having contravened the provisions of section 8 (2) of the said Act. The Rent Controller, therefore, issued the necessary sanction in favour of the respondent, permitting him to file a complaint against the petitioner. It is against this order of the Rent Controller that the present Revision Petition has been filed.

(2.) AT the time of the arguments in this Revision Petition, it was stated at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which fact was not controverted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent had filed separate proceedings for the recovery of the alleged excess amount of house-tax to the tune of Rs. 475/- which proceedings are pending. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that instead of unnecessarily prolonging this controversy, his client would pay the amount of Rs. 475/- in this Court. The amount was accordingly paid by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the learned counsel for the respondent in Court today. The dispute between the parties being essentially do accounts, it is but appropriate that any future embitterment inter se their relations should be avoided. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is accepted and the order passed by the Rent Controller granting sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner is set aside.