SANJAY SHARMA Vs. AJMER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is against an order passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, assessing the provisional rent for the demised premises to be Rs. 2,000/- p.m., instead of Rs. 375/- p.m., as assessed earlier on 9.8.2003.

(2.) THE respondent-landlord filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner herein and claimed that the rate of rent of the booth in dispute was Rs. 2,000/- p.m., with a stipulation of increase of 10% after every year. It was further claimed in the eviction petition that the rate of rent was Rs. 2,622/- p.m. upto 10.12.1996 and Rs. 2,928/- p.m. w.e.f. 1.12.1997 and Rs. 3,220/- p.m., w.e.f. 10.12.1998 onwards. The petitioner opposed this application and claimed that the rate of rent was Rs. 375/- p.m. The learned Rent Controller noticed that as the respondent landlord had claimed that a rent note has been executed, it was his duty to have produced the same, but he did not. The learned Rent Controller further noticed that an injunction suit was filed by M/s. Mehra Enterprises against the petitioner in which ex parte proceedings were taken and in said suit the rent claimed was Rs. 375/- p.m. and accordingly assessment was made at Rs. 375/- p.m. Thereafter, application was moved by the respondent landlord for placing on record a copy of the rent note executed between the parties. The said application was opposed primarily on the ground that no review is permissible under the provisions of the East Punjab (Urban Rent Restriction) Act. The execution of the rent note was also disputed. The learned Rent Controller accepted the application by observing that the provisional rent was assessed in the absence of the rent agreement. As the same has been produced now, it would be in the interest of justice to assess the provisional rent in view of the said rent agreement. The learned Rent Controller also expressed an opinion that the re-assessment of provisional rent would not amount to review of order dated 9.8.2003.

(3.) LEARNED Senior Counsel for the petitioners thereafter placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kewal Chand Mimani by Lrs. v. S.K. Sen, 2001(2) RCR(Rent) 158 : 2001(3) RCR(Civil) 746 : 2001(2) RLR 255 to contend that power of review is not an inherent power and it has to be conferred by law specifically or by necessary implication. He also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of National Hotel (Firm) Bombay and others v. Rukaiyabai and others, 1985(2) RCR 112 to contend that power of review was not inherent as it has to be conferred by law specifically or by necessary implication. He further placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Jagdish Parshad v. Mehar Chand and another, 1993(1) R.R.R. 206 : 1993(1) RCR 459, to contend that the Rent Act does not confer any power on Rent Controller or Appellate Authority to review their own order. In the said judgment, it was also held that the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority are not courts and therefore, the review exercised by the civil Court under CPC cannot be exercised by them. The learned Senior Counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Monm and another v. Gopinath, 1999(1) RLR 510, to contend that when there is no provision of filing a review petition in the Act, the review cannot be held to be maintainable. Learned Senior Counsel thereafter placed reliance upon judgment in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan and others v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and others, 2002(5) RCR(Rent) 514 (SC) : 2002(5) SCC 440 to contend that under the provisions of the Act, it is a duty of the Controller to asses the arrears of rent, the interest on such arrears and also the cost of the application. Thus the decision in respect of provisional rent has to be taken as a decision which cannot be subsequently reviewed. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner lastly placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa and others, 2000(4) RCR(Criminal) 650 : 2001(1) SCC 169 to contend that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to lay down that power to review cannot be exercised even under inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.