LAWS(P&H)-2017-2-297

NARESH KUMAR AGGARWAL Vs. MANOHAR LAL

Decided On February 06, 2017
NARESH KUMAR AGGARWAL Appellant
V/S
MANOHAR LAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition is directed by the petitioner-landlord against the order dated 14.12.2015 (Annexure P-4) whereby, the Appellate Authority has set aside the order dated 03.09.2015 (Annexure P- 3) passed by the Rent Controller and appointed a Local Commissioner to submit a report after making necessary inquiry regarding the prevalent rate of rent of similar accommodation in the vicinity. It was further directed that the Rent Controller shall assess the provisional rate of rent after hearing the parties and considering the report of the Local Commissioner.

(2.) The reasoning which prevailed with the Appellate Authority was that since the onus of the rate of rent was upon the tenant and there was a dispute as regarding the arrears also and in the absence of any written rent note, it was not possible to fix any rent without any justification and the Rent Controller has wrongly assessed the provisional rent.

(3.) The dispute inter se the parties is qua the rate of rent and the arrears. The rent petition was instituted on 209.2014 and non-payment was alleged from 01.01.2012 @ Rs. 3,000/- per month. The landlord had taken the plea that the house was taken on monthly rent of Rs. 700/- in the year 1989 and the rent had been increased @ Rs. 100/- per annum from time to time with mutual consent and in January, 2012, it was increased to Rs. 3,000/- in the presence of one Vinod Kumar. The respondent-tenant questioned the title also but took the plea that the tenancy was created in the year 1989 @ Rs. 550/- per month and there was no agreement to enhance, as alleged. The condition of the house had deteriorated and the landlord had agreed to get the house repaired on the condition that the rent would be Rs. 1,600/- per month and accordingly, he had paid advance rent of Rs. 1,600/- from August, 2014. It was denied that the rent was ever enhanced to Rs. 3,000/-, as alleged in the presence of Vinod Kumar. The ownership was also disputed and directions were prayed that the title deed be produced in Court.