HARPREET KAUR Vs. KHAJINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is in occupation of a shop. The respondent claiming himself to be landlord has filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, annexure P -6 seeking ejectment on the ground of bonafide requirement and non -payment of rent claiming that the petitioner has not paid arrears of rent w.e.f. August 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010 at the rate of Rs.12000/ - per month w.e.f. July 1, 2010 to May 30, 2011 at the rate of Rs.12600/ - per month and w.e.f. June 1, 2011 till the date of filing of the petition at the rate of Rs.13630/ - per month.

(2.) THE petitioner has denied relationship of landlord and tenant at the stage of determination of provisional rent. On perusal of the documents appended with the record, the Rent Controller prim facie finding the relationship of landlord and tenant fixed the provisional rent at the rate of Rs.8000/ - per month from August 1, 2009 to March 31, 2014 i.e. for 55 months, totaling the arrears at Rs.4.40 lacs and with interest and cost at Rs.502100/ -, vide impugned order dated March 18, 2014.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated March 18, 2014, the tenant has preferred this revision petition claiming that the petitioner was a licencee and placed reliance on annexure P -1, a licence deed for a period from November 1, 2006 to September 30, 2007 at licence fee at the rate of Rs.8000/ - per month and annexure P -2 dated November 6, 2007 for a period from October 1, 2007 to August 30, 2008 at licence fee at the rate of Rs.11000/ - per month. Referring to annexure P -3, a civil suit for mandatory injunction filed by respondent for delivery of vacant possession and written statement of petitioner annexure P -4 wherein the petitioner has objected to the maintainability of suit for mandatory injunction ascertaining that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant as such suit for mandatory injunction was not maintainable, it is claimed by the petitioner in the present revision petition that a wrong admission has been made in the written statement as such the admission will not be a proof of the relationship of the parties as tenant and landlord. On the said ground the assessment of the provisional rent has been questioned. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on October 29, 2011 matter was taken up by Lok Adalat wherein the defendant - petitioner had admitted that he was a tenant and the respondent had withdrawn the suit for mandatory injunction. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that any order passed by Lok Adalat is not binding on the parties as Lok Adalat is not a Court and it does not have any jurisdiction to discuss the subject matter and persuading them to arrive at a settlement and that the Lok Adalat has got no jurisdiction to enforce a direction. He has placed reliance on State of Punjab and others Vs. Ganpat Raj, 2006 4 RCR(Civ) 497 and State of Punjab and another Vs. Jalour Singh and ors., 2008 1 RCR(Civ) 857.