MALKIT KAUR Vs. JOGINDER LAL KHURANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 21.3.2015 passed by the Appellate Authority remanding the case back to the Rent Controller to assess provisional rent afresh as per law.

(2.) The petitioner herein filed and petition under Sections 13 (2) (v) and 13 (2) (i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 seeking eviction of the respondent from the shop as mentioned in the petition. Eviction was sought on the grounds that respondent was in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.07.2002 up-to-date; the shop was lying vacant since 18.7.2005, as the respondent had gone abroad and the respondent had ceased to occupy the demised premises for a statutory period of 4 months without any reasonable cause. The eviction petition was contested. During the pendency of proceedings before the Rent Controller, by an order dated 27.1.2006, the provisional arrears of rent were assessed at Rs. 150/- per month due from February 1994 to be paid along with interest at 6% per annum and also costs were assessed at Rs. 200/-. On the same date i.e. 27.01.2006, the respondent made tender of Rs. 5400/- being rent plus Rs. 500 as interest plus Rs. 200 as costs totalling Rs. 6,100, which tender was accepted by the counsel for the petitioner under protest stating it short. Thereafter, issues were framed and evidence was led and the matter was posted for final disposal. The Rent Controller held that the petitioner had failed to prove that the respondent had ceased to occupy the shop, but ordered eviction on the ground that the tender made by the respondent was not valid being short and not in conformity with the order dated 27.1.2006. Aggrieved against the order of eviction, the respondent filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, who remanded the matter to the Rent Controller to re-determine the provisional rent while holding that the provisional rent had been assessed without any evidence on the record. An opportunity was also given to the respondent to deposit the arrears of rent. It is against this order that the instant revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Mr S.S. Kanwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-landlord, submits that the Appellate Authority has erred in holding that the Rent Controller ought to have assessed provisional rent only after evidence had been adduced in that regard . In support of his argument, he places reliance upon a judgment rendered in Munish Bhatia vs. Smt Kishni Devi and another, 2006 3 CivCC 402, where it has been held that the rent so assessed is only provisional rent and the Rent Controller is not required to take evidence regarding rate of rent and period of rent. He further argues that once provisional assessment of rent had been made, the tenant could challenge the same but after tendering such rent under protest. It is argued that once there was no challenge to the provisional rent assessed, then the respondent tenant had to comply with the order and failure to do so would invite order of eviction as has been done in the instant case. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered in Ashwani Kumar and another versus M/s Amartex Industries Limited, 2013 1 RCR(Rent) 595.