S. NIRMAL SINGH Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a petition filed by the landlord under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, the tenant sought for leave to defend on two grounds that the landlord had earlier filed a petition for eviction under Section 13 which was dismissed and he was barred from filing an application afresh. The other ground viz. the bona fides of the landlord, who was admittedly an NRI, was suspect since earlier to the filing of the petition, the landlord had issued a notice demanding a higher amount as payable as an expression of an intention of the landlord to raise the rent and not to vacate the premises and the petition had been filed only to secure a hard bargain of increase in rent.

(2.) THE Rent Controller rejected the objection taken by the tenant regarding the non-maintainability of the petition that the landlord had filed earlier application under Section 13 and found the plea of res judicata as contended by him was not legally justified. As regards the other objection namely of the landlord's demand for determination of a higher rate of rent or mesne profits for the period after 03.05.1995 when the period of tenancy had expired and the plea that the tenant was liable to pay the rent at the market rate as constituting a defence which if accepted, the landlord's petition was liable for dismissal. The Rent Controller permitted the tenant leave to defend. It is against this order that the landlord is in revision.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner points out to the fact that the original lease deed dated 03.05.1983 was for a tenure of seven years and the document also provided for an extension for a further period of five years. The rent stipulated under the document was Rs. 1.50 per square feet and by such a reckoning, the rent which was payable was Rs. 4194/-. It was matter of record that a notice to vacate the premises had been given on the expiry of the lease period that stood extended upto 05.04.1995. It was also followed by a petition under Section 13 but it was not prosecuted, which according to the learned counsel was on account of the fact that landlord's wife was suffering from serious illness and therefore, he had to go back to Canada to nurse her. Admittedly, the tenant had paid rent only upto December 1997 and subsequently completely defaulted in payment of rent. Nearly after 8 years on 10.06.2005, on the occasion when the tenant had not been paying the rent, the landlord issued a notice that the continuance in possession after the period of lease had expired was unjustified and the tenant cannot treat himself to be liable to. pay rent only at the rate which was previously stipulated at Rs. 1.50 per square feet under the lease deed dated 03.05.1983 and that the tenant was liable to pay for all the period from December, 1997 till the date of issue of notice rent at the market rate. This, in the submission was a reasonable demand on a tenant, which was a Bank that did not pay the rent for a long period. The notice concluded with a statement that if the tenant desired to continue it shall perforce pay rent at the market rate. This notice was construed by the Rent Controller as affording, the tenant a reasonable ground to suspect the bona fides of the landlord.