High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
SATISH KUMAR v. VED RAJ GARG - CR-6290-2005  RD-P&H 210 (27 October 2005)
CIVIL REVISION NO.6290 OF 2005(O&M)
Date of Decision: 28.11.2005
Satish Kumar ..Petitioner
Ved Raj Garg ..Respondent
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.S.S.SARON
Present: Mr. S. P. Garg, Advocate
for the petitioner.
This petition under section 15(5) of East Punjab Rent Restriction Act 1949 (for short the Act) has been filed against the order dated 9.11.2005 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Dhuri whereby the petitioner-tenant has been directed to pay arrears of rent which is admittedly Rs.600/- per month w.e.f. 11.12.1990 till the filing of the application along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of payment of the arrears of rent and costs of Rs.700/- already assessed in the present case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the tenant-petitioner has made payment of rent at the rate of Rs.600/- per month to one of the co-owners namely Kulwant Singh w.e.f. 1.7.1995 to 31.12.2002. It is contended that the receipts given by Kulwant Singh, co-owner are already on record. It is also contended that the land-lord respondent in his petition dated 24.4.2002 has stated that he is entitled to receive rent of 1/9th
share of the total rent from the petitioner-tenant which infact the petitioner has paid to the land-lord-respondent upto 9.12.1990.
After giving my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner it may be noticed that as per the averments in the petition dated 24.4.2002 of the landlord-respondent, it is averred that the premises in dispute was taken on monthly rent of Rs.600/- vide rent note dated 10.11.1978 from various persons including the petitioner. The learned Rent Controller found that there is no letter of authority authorizing Kulwant Singh, stated to be the co-owner to receive rent and therefore the petitioner cannot take the benefit of the fact that he has paid all arrears of rent to said Kulwant Singh.
In my view the order passed by the learned Rent-Controller is only provisional in nature and the same is subject to final adjudication of the case. Therefore, in case the tender indeed has been found to have been made by the petitioner, the same is subject to adjustment at the time of final adjudication of the case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Rakesh Wadhawan Jagdamba AIR 2002 SC 2004 while summing up its conclusion in sub para (5) of para 30 has observed as follows:- " If the final adjudication by the Controller be at variance with his interim or provisional order passed under the proviso, one of the following two orders may be made depending on the facts situation of a given case. If the amount deposited by the tenant is found to be in excess, the Controller may direct a refund. If, on the other hand, the amount deposited by the tenant is found to be short or deficient, the Controller may pass a conditional order directing tenant to place the landlord in possession of the premises by giving a reasonable time to the tenant for paying or tendering the deficit amount, failing which alone he shall be liable to be evicted. Compliance shall save him from eviction."
A perusal of the above shows that the provisional order of payment is subject to final adjudication. Therefore, at this stage it would be improper to go into the contentions and record a finding of fact as regards the payment of rent and it would be more appropriate that this aspect is considered and gone into by the Rent Controller after evidence has been lead.
For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
November 28, 2005 JUDGE
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.