Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajesh Kumar Bedi vs Amit Kashyap on 18 April, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:053667
2023:PHHC:053667
CR-1281-2023 (O&M)
119
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR-1281-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision: April 18, 2023
Rajesh Kumar Bedi
....Revisionist
versus
Aman Kahsyap
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Present:- Mr. B.S. Rana, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Nayandeep Rana, Advocate and
Mr. Vikas Malik, Advocate for revisionist-tenant.
Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Kunal Mulwani, Advocate for respondent-landlord.
*****
ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)
Petition herein is for setting aside impugned order dated 22.08.2022
passed by learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, whereby on an application filed by
respondent-landlord for assessment of provisional rent was allowed, learned Rent
Controller provisionally assessed the rate of rent; and impugned order dated
21.09.2022, whereby appeal filed by revisionist-tenant against aforesaid order, was
dismissed.
2. Learned senior counsel for revisionist-tenant would contend that
respondent-landlord filed an Eviction Petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab
Urban Rent Restriction Act (As amended upto date and applicable to U.T.,
Chandigarh) for eviction of revisionist, on the ground of arrears of rent, from
Ground Floor and First Floor portion of a 10-Marla House bearing No.247, Sector
15-A, Chandigarh (as recited in rent petition). Respondent-landlord filed an
application for assessment of provisional rent. Vide impugned order dated
22.08.2022, learned Rent Controller allowed the aforesaid application and assessed
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:053667
2023:PHHC:053667
CR-1281-2023 (O&M)
the initial rent @ Rs.3.60 lakh per month from 01.02.2020 to 31.08.2020 and
thereafter, granted enhancement @ 10% per year on the last paid rent. He would
further contend that revisionist-tenant filed an appeal against aforesaid order,
which was also dismissed by learned Appellate Authority vide order dated
21.09.2022.
2.1. Learned senior counsel for revisionist-tenant would argue that learned
Authorities below ignored the fact that rent deed produced by respondent-landlord
was an unregistered rent deed. 10% enhancement cannot be granted while
assessing provisional rent after relying on stipulations in an unregistered rent deed.
He would also argue that revisionist-tenant had categorically denied the
relationship of tenant and landlord, therefore, no order regarding provisional
assessment of rent could have been passed.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent-landlord opposes
the prayer made and submits that revisionist-tenant has concealed the factum of
passing of final judgment/ order dated 26.09.2022 (Annexure R-1) in the eviction
petition in question. Revisionist-tenant has also concealed filing of an appeal
(Annexure R-4) against aforesaid judgment/ order. Revisionist-tenant has also
concealed filing of an application for extension of time to vacate tenanted premises
before learned Executing Authority (Rent Controller). He would further argue that
revisionist has concealed factum of partial execution of final judgment/ order dated
26.09.2022, that on 21.12.2022, possession of ground floor portion (under tenancy
of revisionist-tenant) has been taken through bailiff, which was endorsed to the
revisionist on the backside of warrants of possession (Annexure R-6).
4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the record.
5. Having heard arguments, I am of the view that revisionist-tenant, who
is seeking an equitable relief before this Court must also at the same time conduct
equitably in order to seek discretionary indulgence of the Court. Having
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:053667
2023:PHHC:053667
CR-1281-2023 (O&M)
intentionally withheld material facts from the Court as well as concealment of
filing of an application dated 23.11.2022 (Annexure R-2), which has been placed
on record by respondent-landlord along with an application seeking summary
dismissal of revision petition, I am of the view that revisionist does not deserve any
indulgence by invoking extraordinary revisional jurisdiction of this Court. In fact,
very pleading of the revisionist-tenant before learned Rent Controller vide
aforesaid application (Annexure R-2), non-suits him to seek any relief from this
Court, at this stage, given that said application was dismissed vide order dated
08.12.2022 (Annexure R-3) and he did not take any steps to seek any remedy
against the said order. Both head note of the application as well as order passed on
the same being relevant, are reproduced herein below:
Head note of application dated 23.11.2022 (Annexure R-2) filed
before learned Executing Authority (Rent Controller) by
revisionist-tenant
"Application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, with a prayer seeking extension of time to vacate the demised
premises from 60 days as has been directed vide order/ judgment
dated 26.09.2022 to further, period of 90 days pertaining to the
ground floor and first floor portion of house No.247, Sector 15-A,
Chandigarh (except two bed rooms on the ground floor along with
attached bathrooms, lobby and rear courtyard under the possession of
the Revisionist/ respondent) as directed in the order/ judgment dated
26.09.2022, keeping in view the facts and circumstances mentioned
above and in the interest of justice."
Order dated 08.12.2022 (Annexure R-3) passed on aforesaid
application
"Arguments heard on application for issuance of direction to
Bailiffto take the possession of premises by breaking open the lock.
Vide separate order, application for issuance of direction to
Bailiff to take the possession of premises by breaking open the lock
stands dismissed at this stage.
Vide separate order of even date, application under Section 151
CPC with a prayer seeking extension of time to vacate the demised
premises from 60 days as has been directed vide order/ judgment
dated 26.09.2022 to further period of 90 days pertaining to the ground
floor and first floor portion of house No.247, Sector 15-A,
Chandigarh (except two bed rooms on the ground floor along with
attached bathrooms, lobby and rear courtyard under the possession of
the Revisionist/ respondent) as directed in the order/ judgment dated
26.09.2022 stands dismissed being devoid of any merit.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:053667
2023:PHHC:053667
CR-1281-2023 (O&M)
Accordingly, warrants of possession in respect of the suit
property fully detailed and described in judgment dated 26.09.2022 be
issued for 03.01.2023."
6. In view of the aforesaid, revision petition is dismissed both on merits
as well as concealment of material facts.
7. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA)
JUDGE
April 18, 2023
mahavir
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:053667
4 of 4
