Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Singh vs Mohan Lal And Another on 25 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.2870 of 2022
Date of decision: 25th July, 2022
Ram Singh
... Petitioner
Versus
Mohan Lal & another
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present: Mr. Navkesh S. Goraya, Advocate for the petitioner.
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.
The petitioner/landlord is impugning an order dated
04.10.2021 vide which learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana has assessed
provisional rent of the shop in question and order dated 20.05.2022 of
learned Appellate Authority, Ludhiana affirming the aforesaid findings
of the Rent Controller.
Learned counsel inter alia contends that the impugned order
passed by the Rent Controller deserves to be set aside as the Court had
failed to consider the relevant facts and material which had been placed
on the record before it. He further submits that provisional rent in the
sum of ` 1,000/- per month which had been assessed by the Rent
Controller, was on the face of it, on the lower side. It was submitted
that as per the rent agreement dated 02.02.1995, the rate of rent was
agreed upon in the sum of ` 1,200/- per month which was to increase at
1 of 3
the rate of 5% per annum with effect from February 1996. However,
the Rent Controller failed to take into account the said condition while
assessing the aforementioned provisional rent. It was also urged that
even though it was brought to the notice of the Rent Controller that the
prevailing rent in the vicinity of the demised premises was much higher
than ` 1,000/-; however, the said fact was yet again ignored by the Rent
Controller while passing the impugned order. In support, learned
counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment passed by this Court in
'Giani Ajit through Attorney Pritpal Singh vs. Maninder Pal Singh
& others' CR No.4793 of 2019.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused
the relevant material on record.
The petitioner has produced a photocopy of the rent
agreement dated 02.02.1995 which is an unregistered document hence,
the order of the Rent Controller cannot be faulted with for rightly
ignoring the above said unregistered document. It needs to be noticed
that at the stage of assessing provisional rent, the learned Rent
Controller has to prima facie satisfy itself qua the rate of rent on the
basis of the material on record. Any such assessment made with respect
to provisional rent by the Rent Controller is subject to final
adjudication on the question of rate of rent. It is well settled that if the
Rent Controller after final adjudication of the inquiry, arrives at a
2 of 3
conclusion that the quantum of arrears of rent, as determined finally, is
much more than what was provisionally assessed as rent, the Rent
Controller is empowered to direct the tenant to deposit any such
additional amount. Furthermore, the submission made by the learned
counsel that the Rent Controller ignored the rent prevailing in the
vicinity of the demised premises while assessing the provisional rent,
deserves to be rejected. It would be relevant to point out here that vide
impugned order, the learned Rent Controller has only assessed the
provisional rent and not the mesne profits. The Rent Controller is not
required to consider the rate of rent prevailing in the vicinity of the
demised shop. Rather, it is just supposed to restrict its inquiry at this
stage to the material on record in the form of documents and
admissions.
The case relied upon by the learned counsel would not
come to his rescue as it pertains to the assessment of mesne profits and
not provisional rent. The present petition being devoid of any merit
stands dismissed in limine.
(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
JUDGE
July 25, 2022
rps
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
