SOHAN LAL Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly the facts are that Om Parkash (respondent in the revision petition) filed an application for ejectment against Sohan Lal (petitioner in the revision petition) on two grounds, namely, non-payment of rent and that he ceased to occupy the shop for a continuous period of four months. It was alleged in the petition that the rate of rent was Rs. 100/- per mensem. The tenant contested the petition and inter alia pleaded that the rent settled was Rs. 50/- per mensem and not Rs. 100/-. However, on the first date of hearing in order to avoid his eviction on the ground of non-payment of full rent, he tendered the rent at the rate of Rs. 100/- per mensem. Latter he moved an application that an additional issue be framed as to what was the rate of rent. It was dismissed on the ground that the rent had already been tendered by the tenant and that the main ground of ejectment of the tenant was that he had ceased to occupy the shop for continuous period of four months. The tenant has come up in revision to this Court.

(2.) The only question that arises is as to whether the tenant is entitled to the framing of the said issue after he had paid the rent at the rate claimed by the landlord. The matter is well-settled that in case the tenant alleges that the rate of the rent claimed by the landlord was excessive, he can tender the rent as demanded by the landlord and claim a decision from the Court about the rate of rent. In the circumstances I am of the view that the Rent Controller should have framed an issue regarding the rate of rent.

(3.) For the aforesaid reasons, I accept the revision petition and frame the following issue :-