AJAY KASHYAP Vs. MOHINI NIJHAWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner challenges the order of eviction passed by the Appellate Authority accepting the contention of the landlord on two counts that there was a valid lease executed by the tenant in favour of the landlord undertaking to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 2400/- per month and (ii) there had been a default on the part of the tenant to pay the rent as undertaken by him on the denial of the relationship between the landlord and tenant setting up title in favour of third party i.e. Subhash Sethi.

(2.) THE learned Senior counsel arguing on behalf of the revision petitioner begins his argument with a concession that the tenant will not any longer press the dispute regarding the entitlement of the landlord to collect rent and that he would accept him to be his landlord and not pressforth his plea that Subhash Sethi was the landlord. The learned Sr. counsel urges two contentions i) if the tenancy for Rs. 2400/- were to be accepted the Rent Controller ought to have before passing an order for eviction for non-payment of rent followed the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan v. M/s. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and Ors., 2002(1) RCR(Rent) 514. A ccording to him the Rent Controller ought to have afforded an opportunity to pay the rent calculated and without such an opportunity eviction could not have been issued. The counsel for the petitioner contended that he was ready to pay the rent and continue the relationship with the landlord. The second contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner is that a clause for enhancement of rent at the rate of 10% per year was against statute. The parties cannot contract themselves out of law and stipulation for enhancement in the rent deed was invalid. The learned Senior counsel referred me to the provisions of Section 6 and 7 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 which according to him contained a legislative interdict against enhancement of rent against voluntary enhancement of rent.

(3.) LEARNED counsel also refers to the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhoja Ram v. Rameshwar Agarwala and others, 1993(1) RCR(Rent) 484 : JT 1993(2) SC 375. This decision is also inapplicable because the Supreme Court was dealing with the express provisions of "Bihar Lease Rent and Eviction Control Act" which contained through Section 4 a clear bar for enhancement of rent in the following words :-