Sahil Singal v. M/S Goyam Paper Mart and Another

IN

Sahil Sing

M/s Goya

CORAM

Present:

VIKAS S

¶1petitioner (Annexur whereby Chandiga aside.

¶2Section 1

THE HIGH COURT OF PUN AT CHANDIG

gal

Versus am Paper Mart and another M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V Mr. Sunil Chadha, Sr. Advoc Mr. Achin Gupta, Advocate a Ms. Devyani Sharma, Advoc

Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Sr. Ad Ms. Aashna Aggarwal, Advo Mr. Vishal Pundir, Advocate

*****

SURI, J. Prayer in the present revision r-landlord, is for setting aside t re P-11) passed by learned Ap provisional rent assessed by arh, vide order dated 30.05.2023 Briefly stated, the petitione 13 of the East Punjab Urban R NJAB AND HARYANA GARH CR-5395-2023 (O&M) Reserved on: 10.04.2024 Pronounced on: 31.05.2024 ...Petitioner ...Respondents VIKAS SURI cate with and cate for the petitioner. dvocate with ocate and for the respondents. n petition, at the instance of the the judgment dated 31.08.2023 ppellate Authority, Chandigarh, the learned Rent Controller, 3 (Annexure P-9), has been set er filed a rent petition under Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for

eviction o ground f Chandiga were indu into writin The perio

31.08.202 an increas remaining Rs.1,05,0 According

01.09.201

31.08.202 was Rs.8 Rs.1,05,0 the lease payable in interest on 18% p.a.. Rs.1.50 la also depo the rent p make pay

of the respondents from the te floor of Industrial Shed No.7 arh. It has been pleaded in the re ucted as tenants on the terms and ng in the form of lease deed dat od of tenancy mentioned ther

¶21The initial rate of rent was fi se was stipulated every year, for g lease period of six months 00/- per month, excluding e gly, the rate of rent for the 18 to 31.08.2019 was Rs.75 20 was Rs.81,000/- per month; w 7,480/- per month; and w.e.f. 00/- per month. As per the term deed, the rent excluding elec n advance before 7th of each ca n delayed payment was also con . As per clause 4 of the lease d akh, i.e. an amount equivalent t sited by the respondents as inter petition, it was further alleged yment of rent w.e.f. 01.04.2020 enanted premises, described as 80, Industrial Area, Phase-2, ent petition that the respondents d conditions of tenancy, reduced ted 18.08.2018 (Annexure P-1). rein was w.e.f. 01.09.2018 to fixed at Rs.75,000/-. Thereafter, r the next 2 ½ years; and for the s, the rent was stated to be electricity and water charges. first year, i.e. for the period 5,000/-; w.e.f. 01.09.2019 to w.e.f. 01.09.2020 to 28.02.2021

01.03.2021 to 31.08.2021 was ms and conditions contained in tricity and water charges was alendar month. Liability to pay ntemplated therein at the rate of deed (Annexure P-1), a sum of to two months' initial rent, was rest free refundable security. In that the respondents failed to 0 and despite repeated requests

for the sa their liabi

07.04.202 presentati criminal c 1881 has responden to pay re presentati through th demised p

¶3responden lease dee opposed o petitioner parties; an was furthe power of or to recei

¶4reiterating those mad

ame, they failed to pay the rent ility to pay rent from April, 2020 20, for an amount of Rs.72,9 ion was dishonoured with the r complaint under Section 138 of t also been filed by the petitione nts had also issued cheques tow ent for the months of May, ion to the Bank for payment, th he present rent petition, evictio premises, on account of non-paym Upon notice, the rent pe nts by filing a detailed written s ed dated 18.08.2018 has been on the ground that was no caus r; there was no relationship of la nd the petitioner is not the own er averred that the petitioner did attorney from the owner of the p ive rent in relation thereto. Rejoinder was filed to the g the averments made in the r de in the written statement. It w due. However, in discharge of 0, they had issued cheque dated 00/-, but the said cheque on remarks 'funds insufficient'. A the Negotiable Instruments Act, er against the respondents. The wards discharge of their liability June and July, 2020 and on hey met the same fate. Hence, on of the respondents from the ment of rent, has been sought. etition was contested by the statement. The execution of the admitted but the petition was se of action had accrued to the andlord and tenant between the ner of the demised premises. It d not have any authority letter or premises to let out the premises e aforesaid written statement, rent petition and controverting was specifically averred that the

tenant has over the landlord a

18.08.201

¶5that since case was CPC, and deferred t dates ther matter wa matter w substantia adjourned

¶6moved an and furth assessmen the evictio were in commerci responden lease deed

s no locus standi to challenge the demised premises. It was reite and respondents are tenants und 18, with regard to the demised pr The Rent Controller vide ord e the relationship of landlord an not referred to alternative mode d instead proceeded to frame the to 31.05.2022 for petitioner's reafter, learned Rent Controller as further deferred. On the sub was transferred to another Ren al proceedings took place on d to 29.11.2022 for petitioner's e On the aforesaid hearing n application seeking recalling her for posting the matter for nt of provisional rent. It was plea on of the respondent was sought arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.04.2 ial property without payment nts came into possession of th d dated 18.08.2018. The execut e title/ownership of the landlord erated that the petitioner is the der him, vide lease deed dated remises. der dated 25.04.2022, observed nd tenant has been denied, the es referred under Section 89 of e issues. The proceedings were evidence. On two consecutive was on medical leave and the bsequent hearing thereafter, the nt Controller and as such, no

19.09.2022 and the case was evidence. on 29.11.2022, the petitioner of the order dated 25.04.2022 consideration on the point of aded in the said application that t on the ground that the tenants 2020 and were enjoying the of any rent. Admittedly, the e demised premises under the tion of the aforesaid lease deed

has been therein ha reply was

18.08.201 landlord

16.05.202 submissio denial of in view admitted a is no land eviction w assessmen and the provisiona

¶7assessmen Court in

(2002) 5 counsel o assessed v tendered o

8.

admitted in the written statemen as not been denied. Upon notice s filed thereto, wherein, execu 18 was again admitted while and tenant. The learned Rent 23 (Annexure P-8), noticing th ons advanced by both the partie landlord and tenant relationship that execution of lease deed and at that stage of the proceedi dlord and tenant relationship betw was sought on the ground of no nt of rent has to be made. Thu proceedings were posted for al assessment of rent. On the subsequent hearings, nt of provisional rent in terms of Rakesh Wadhawan vs. Jagda SCC 440. After considering on both sides and perusal of th vide order dated 30.05.2023 (A on 03.07.2023. In the meanwhile, aggrieve nt and the rate of rent reflected e of the said application, a short ution of the lease deed dated denying the relationship of t Controller vide order dated he factual aspect and the rival es, came to the conclusion that was an evasive denial, keeping between the parties has been ings, it cannot be said that there ween the parties. Further, since on-payment of rent, provisional us, the application was allowed

18.05.2023 for arguments on the matter was considered for f the law laid down by the Apex amba Industrial Corporation, the submissions advanced by he record, provisional rent was Annexure P-9), which was to be ed by the aforesaid order, the

responden vide judg Appellate by the Re aside. Ag landlord h revision p

¶9petitioner 227 of the be exercis Punjab U Chandiga SUBMIS

¶10submitted taking the same on a and cond writing in period of i.e. from between t

nts preferred an appeal on 13.06 gment dated 31.08.2023 (Ann e Authority, Chandigarh and the ent Controller, making assessmen ggrieved by the said judgment da has invoked jurisdiction of this petition. At the very outset, it has be r that though the instant petition e Constitution of India but the r sed, falls within the ambit and Urban Rent Restriction Act, arh) (for short 'the Rent Act'). SIONS ON BEHALF OF THE Learned senior counsel fo d that upon the respondents a e demised premises on rent, the a monthly rent starting at Rs.75 ditions mutually agreed between n the form of lease deed dated 18 lease regarding the demised pre

01.09.2018 to 31.08.2021. Th the parties stands admitted in the .2023, which has been accepted nexure P-11) passed by the order dated 30.05.2023 passed nt of provisional rent, stands set ated 31.08.2023, the petitioner-s Court by way of the instant een submitted on behalf of the n has been filed under Article revisional jurisdiction sought to scope of Section 15(5) of the 1949 (as applicable to U.T. E PETITIONER or the petitioner-landlord has approaching the petitioner for petitioner agreed to let out the 5,000/- per month, on the terms n the parties and reduced into

8.08.2018 (Annexure P-1). The emises was fixed at 36 months, he execution of the lease deed e written statement, the recitals

whereof e petitioner handed o executing into exist paid the a the owne demised p landlord t dishonest any relati the admis submitted possession

18.08.201 upto 31.0 contended 1872, the to questio responden remain in rent/charg

11.

establish that the respondents w r and while letting out the demise over by the petitioner. It is fu g the lease deed, a jural relationsh ence between the parties and th agreed rent upto 31.03.2020. The ership/title of the landlord. M premises is neither a pre-requisi to seek eviction of the tenant. stand taken by the tenant-respo onship of landlord and tenant b ssion made in para 2 of the w d that the respondents have n n of the demised premises b

¶18It is also not denied that sinc

03.2020, rent was being paid d that by virtue of Section 116 tenant-respondents are estopped on the title of the landlord. It nts have not surrendered the po n possession of the demised pre ges for use and occupation w.e.f. Shri Sunil Chadha, learned se were inducted as tenants by the ed premises, the possession was urther submitted that upon the hip of landlord and tenant came he tenant-respondents have also e tenants, thus, cannot challenge Moreover, being owner of the ite nor a relevant factor, for the It is further submitted that the ondents that there does not exist between the parties is belied by written statement. It is further ot denied to have come into y virtue of lease deed dated ce the inception of the tenancy, to the petitioner. It is, thus, 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, d by their own act and conduct t is further submitted that the ossession and are continuing to emises without payment of any . 01.04.2020, till date. enior counsel for the petitioner,

has furthe the legal Controller which ord failed to r consequen

30.05.202 argued th

25.04.202 the matte order date however, of the rec or not, wa dated 25.0 denial of learned se Rent Act procedure strictly ap submitted

25.04.202 the said

er argued that vide order dated position and the factual aspec r posted the proceedings for a der has not been challenged by t raise challenge to the said orde ntial order of assessment of 23 ought not to have been inter hat the application seeking r 22, is in two parts; first being fo er for assessment of provisiona ed 25.04.2022 did not decline proceeded to frame omnibus iss ord that the aspect, whether prov as not even considered when th

04.2022. Even otherwise, no is the relationship of landlord and enior counsel for the petitioner t are persona designata and e, and the provisions of the Co pplicable to the proceedings un d that in fact there has been n 22, inasmuch as it relates to asses order there was no adjudicatio

16.05.2023, after appreciating ct of the matter, learned Rent assessment of provisional rent, the respondents. Hence, having er, which is foundational to the provisional rent, order dated rfered with. It has been further recalling of the order dated or recalling and other for listing l rent. It is submitted that the to assess the provisional rent, sues. It is apparent from perusal visional rent was to be assessed e issues were struck vide order sue has been framed regarding d tenant. It is next contended by r that the authorities under the they can evolve their own ode of Civil Procedure are not nder the Rent Act. It is further no review of the order dated ssment of provisional rent, as in on in that regard. It is lastly

submitted

30.05.202 returned i and as suc SUBMIS

¶12responden have reca framed. proceedin permissib order date Controller of the ear provisiona grounds o order date CPC. Res tenant, le responden premises. premises letter or a

d that the Appellate Authority co 23, against which the appeal w in the order dated 16.05.2023 r ch, the same still stands. SIONS ON BEHALF OF THE Shri Ashish Aggarwal, lea nts, has vehemently argued that alled the order dated 25.04.2022 Recall of the said order am ngs under the Rent Act, being a ble. It is further argued that in th ed 30.05.2023, a specific groun r has no power to recall its order rlier order and has thus, it erred al rent. It is further contended th of appeal, it is deemed that ch ed 16.05.2023, which is permis sponding to the existence of th earned counsel for the respon nts were induced by the petit The petitioner is neither the o in question nor is he holding an any other letter to the effect that ould only set aside order dated was preferred and the finding remains unchallenged, till date E RESPONDENTS arned senior counsel for the t the Rent Controller could not 2 whereby the issues had been mounts to review, which in a complete code in itself, is not he appeal preferred against the nd has been taken that the Rent r as the same amounts to review d in making assessment of the hat having raised the issue in the hallenge has been made to the ssible, in terms of Section 105 he relationship of landlord and ndents has submitted that the tioner in renting the demised owner nor the landlord of the ny power of attorney, authority t he had the legitimate sanction

to let out thereof. It their right petitioner

¶13with their ANALYS

¶14and in the over to th three year Rs. 75,00 terms and during the

The respo of Rs. 75, rate of Rs i.e., for a alleged de apposite

t the demised premises and is t is further submitted that the res t to recover the amount of rent r from 01.09.2018 to 31.03.2020. I have heard learned counse r able assistance perused the reco SIS AND CONSIDERATION: Admittedly, a lease deed wa e terms thereof, possession of the he tenant/respondents. The term rs, i.e. from 01.09.2018 to 31.0 0/- per month. An increase in t d conditions contained in the e lease term was agreed to as und

(i) Rent from 01.09.2018 to 31

(ii) Rent from 01.09.2019 to 31

(iii) Rent from 01.09.2020 to 28

(iv) Rent from 01.03.2021 to 31 ondents have also being paying r ,000/- per month for the period 0 s. 81,000/- per month for the pe a period of 19 months withou efault in payment of rent is stated to first refer to the aforesaid s authorized to receive rentals spondents have already reserved t that had been received by the . el for the parties at length and ord. as executed between the parties e demised premises was handed of the lease was for a period of

8.2021 and the initial rent was the rent is stipulated as per the lease deed, whereby the rent der:

1.08.2019 – Rs. 75,000/- p.m.

1.08.2020 – Rs. 81,000/- p.m.

8.02.2021 – Rs. 87,480/- p.m.

1.08.2021 – Rs. 1,05,000/- p.m. rent to the petitioner at the rate

01.09.2018 to 31.08.2019; at the eriod 01.09.2019 to 31.03.2020, ut any default, whereafter the d to have occurred. It would be lease deed dated 18.08.2018

(Annexur hereunder

re P-1), which is an admitted doc r for reference:

"LEASE D

This Rent Agreement is mad __ of August 2018 between:

¶1Sh. Sahil Singal s/o resident of House No. (hereinafter referred t terms shall where the legal heirs, represen successors in interests part of this deed:

AND

¶2M/s Goyam Paper Ma Sondhi S/o Sh. Kamal Floor) Sector 34-C, Ch to as Party No. 2, w context so admits representatives, assign administrators) of the o

Whereas the Party No. 1 Shed No. 780, Industrial A its owner Smt. Ram Rati Agreement to Sell and the Whereas the Party No. 2 taking appx. 2200 Sqft ar has agreed to let out the on the monthly rent of Rs cument and is being reproduced DEED

18 AUG 2018 de at Chandigarh, on this day o Sh. Sudhir Kumar Singal, 165, Sector 27-A, Chandigarh to as the Party No. 1, which context so admits includes his ntatives, assignees, executors, and administrators) of the one D art through Prop. Sh. Kuldeep l Kumar Sondhi, # 1208, (Top handigarh, (hereinafter referred which terms shall where the includes his legal heirs, nees, executors, successors and other part of this deed. 1 has purchased the industrial Area, Phase-I Chandigarh from and Smt. Swati Mittal through e possession is with Party No. 1 approached the Party No. 1 for rea on rent and the Party No. 1 premises area appx 2200 Sqft s. 75,000/- per month. Both the

parties have agreed on conditions:- Now this deed is further w

¶1That the period of lea premises is fixed for commencing from 01/09

¶2That the rent has b agreed by both the parti undertakes to increase th Two & Half year and b will be Rs. 1,05,000/-p & water charges. a) Rent from 01.0 75,000/-b) Rent from 01.0 81,000/-c) Rent from 01.0 87,480/-d) Rent from 01.0 1,05,000/-

¶3That the Party No.2 s only by cheque or by Party No. 1, in advan applicable for the Party the Party No.1 and the r on or before 7th day of otherwise interest 18% p the delayed period

¶4That the Party No.2 No.2, interest free refun amounting to Rs. 1,50,0 Thousand only) throug n the following terms and witnessth as under: ase deed in respect of demised r 36 months (Three years) 9/2018 to 31/08/2021. been fixed of Rs. 75,000/- as ies and further the Party No. 2 he rent as mentioned below for alance for six months, the rent per month excluding electricity

09.2018 to 31.08.2019 Rs.

09.2019 to 31.08.2020 Rs.

09.2020 to 28.02.2021 Rs.

03.2021 to 31.08.2021 Rs. shall make the payment of rent demand draft in the name of nce after deducting TDS as No.2 will provide Form 16 to rent should be paid in advance each English Calendar month, per annum shall be charged for has deposited with the Party ndable security of 2 month rent 000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty gh cheque No. 023742 Dt.

15/09/2018 & Cheque N for Rs. 75,000/- each dra C Chandigarh, which sh No. 2 at the time of vaca after deducting dues of charges or other damage

¶5That after the expiry years, the parties can e fresh terms and conditi failing which the increas on the prevailing rent o above shall continue eve premises by the Party No

¶6That the Party No.2 demise premises in the i cannot add or change business. In that case it s

¶7That there is an elec demised premises, there the electricity/water cha department. The Party sanctioned electricity lo shall be responsible fo sanctioned load and sha by the concerned departm

¶8That the tenancy manufacturing of Steel Plant purpose and not fo used in accordance with of Punjab (Developmen No. 023743 dated 25/09/2018 awn on ICICI Bank, Sector 34-hall be refundable to the Party ation of the above said premises lease money, electricity, water es etc. if any of the lease period i.e. Three execute fresh lease deed with ions if so desire at that time, se referred above in para No. 2 f the previous year as referred ery year till the vacation of the o.2. 2 can run the business in the individual capacity only and he any partner/director in their shall amount to sub-letting. ctric and water meters for the efore the Party No.2 shall pay arges directly to the concerned No.2 shall use 70 KW of oad only and the Party No.2 or over consumption beyond all pay, if any penalty imposed ment for over consumption. premises shall be used for l Furniture & Nickle Plating or any other purpose and will be h the provisions of the Capital nt and Regulation) Act, 1952

and the rules made there the site and building of case the Party No 2 vio Ibid Act or the Rules the all the consequences the Party No.1 shall be reim run the business of manu Nickel Plating, the Part permission/NOC from th from any other Govt. D Office, Chandigarh at his

¶9That the Party No. 2 Taxes/GST levied prese such taxes in future sha No. 2, and any other suc shall also be paid in resp to the concerned Local A said Party No.2. The Par the laws and rules mad Govt./Municipal Corpn. future of any kind. The pay proportionate proper of the building. The Par pay GST if the same is liable to pay all the ta government at any later s

¶10That the Party No.2 part of the tenancy pr without written consent Party No.2 will not mak structural alterations.

e-under which are applicable to f the tenancy premises and in olates any of the provisions the en they shall be responsible for ereof and any loss caused to the mbursed by the Party No.2. To ufacturing of Steel Furniture & ty No.2 will have to take the he Pollution Control Board and Deptt./Semi-Govt. Deptt./Estate s own. shall bear and pay all Property ently and any enhancements in all also be borne by the Party ch taxes if any levied in future pect of the scheduled premises Authorities/Body by the above rty No. 2 shall also be bound by de by the Central Govt./State ./Estate Office, Chandigarh in e Party No.2 shall be liable to rty tax as per the area occupied rty No.2 shall also be liable to s applicable and shall also be axes, if any, imposed by the stage shall not sublet or underlet and emises to any other person/s t of the Party No.1, and the ke any temporary or permanent

¶11That the Party No.2 and alteration in the b structure in any manner the Party No.1.

12 That the Party No premises during the day

¶13That the demised pr the Party No.2 at his o shall also be done by the

¶14To avoid by and com the Bye Laws Rules and Govt. or any subsequent orders, direction and no authorities or by any o authority, in so far as th by the Party No.2.

¶15That the Party No.1 any damages that may b Party No.1 due to o Administration or by earthquake dampness, le water pipes or by the ac to the flooring/wall or r whatsoever. The Party N Party No.2 for any dama the Party No.2 provided obliged to file such claim at the cost of the lessee t is available to the Part Administration/defaultin 2 shall not make any addition building nor shall change the without the written consent of . 1 can inspect the demised hours on any day. remises shall be maintained by own costs. The white washing e tenant at his own expenses. mply with at its own costs, all d conditions of the Chandigarh t government etc. and all other otifications issued by the said other body of government or hey are required to be observed shall not hold responsible for be caused to the property of the bligation of the Chandigarh accidental fire, roits, rains eakage, breakage or bursting of ccident. Giving way the portion roof or for any other accidents No.1 shall not be liable to the age to the person or property to always the Party No.2 shall be ms on behalf of in the name and to ensure that adequate remedy ty No.2 from the Chandigarh ng party or parties."

¶15petitioner acquiring of the lea agreemen entered i appropria Rent Act,

A perusal of the aforesaid r/landlord had candidly describ possession of the demised prem ase deed. It is only after having nt executed between the parti into possession of the demis ate to refer to the definition of 'l which reads as thus:-

¶2Definitions.—In this A repugnant in the subject or cont * * * *

(c) "Landlord" means any entitled to receive rent in rented land whether on hi or for the benefit, of any guardian, receiver, execu other person, and include building or rented land authorised, and, every p deriving title under a land * * * *

(i) "tenant" means any pers account rent is payable f and includes a tenant co the termination of the ten not include a person p building or rented land b d lease deed reveals that the bed his title and manner of mises in the opening paragraph accepted the terms of the lease ies that the tenant/respondent sed premises. It would be andlord' and 'tenant' under the Act, unless there is anything text:– person for the time being n respect of any building or is own account or on behalf, other person, or as a trustee, utor or administrator for any es a tenant who sublets any in the manner hereinafter person from time to time dlord; son by whom or on whose for a building or rented land ntinuing in possession after nancy in his favour, but does placed in occupation of a by its tenant, unless with the

¶16not the re demised p wide and the manne tenant can tenant und the termin of the par other as 'l tenant cam

¶17possession term w.e. petitioner landlord tenant/res and tenan be owner

consent in writing of th whom the collection of market, cart-stand or slau shops has been farmed ou town or notified area com A perusal of the aforesaid d equirement of law that a landlo premises. The definition of land also covers a tenant who sublets er authorized under the Rent Ac n be a landlord qua the sub-tena der the Rent Act includes a ten nation of the tenancy in his favo rties claiming to be and describe lessee' (tenant), a prima facie ju me into existence between the pa It is the conceded case that th n of the demised premises on th f. 01.09.2018 and they continue r/landlord upto 31.03.2020. Th instituted the present rent pet spondents for non payment of re nt was denied. The proposition th r of the tenanted premises is no he landlord, or a person to f rent or fees in a public ughter-house or of rents for ut or leased by a municipal, mmittee; and definition would show that it is ord should be the owner of the lord under the Rent Act is very s any building or rented land in ct. Meaning thereby, that even a ant. Likewise, the definition of nant continuing possession after our. In the case at hand, by one ed as 'lessor' (landlord) and the ural relationship of landlord and arties. he tenant/respondents came into he commencement of the lease ed to pay the agreed rent to the hereafter, when the petitioner/ tition seeking eviction of the ent, the relationship of landlord hat the landlord may or may not o longer res integra. Reference

may be m Harbhaja consistent reported a Control Mission H Arora vs. Even othe rent to th attornmen was held a

made to the decision of the Ap an Singh Parihar, AIR 200 tly followed by coordinate ben as Raghubir Chand Mahajan vs Reporter 270; Jagjit Singh Hospital, 2016 (1) Rent Contr . Sudarshan Singh, 2024 (1) erwise, on the tenant/responden he petitioner/landlord, in terms nt of tenancy. In Raghubir Cha as under:- "IV. Manner of how principle o operate.

¶6While understanding the w remembered that the bank was the tenant. The bank was claim transferee through a comprom moot point whether a compro right in the immovable proper this is not a case for declarati refrain from commenting abou the bank that it obtained ow landlord's status does not requ merely a jural relationship that persons, one claiming as landlo this is a case of assignment, e attorns the tenancy to the as relationship. * * * *" pex Court in K.D. Dewan vs. 02 SC 67, which has been nches of this Court. A few are vs. Indian Bank, 2015 (2) Rent Kohli and another vs. City rol Reporter 250 and Meena Rent Control Reporter 552. ts having periodically tendered of the lease deed, there was and Mahajan's case (supra), it of attornment of tenancy will hole controversy, it must be s not the original landlord of ming right to the property as mise decree. It is perhaps a omise decree could transfer rty without registration, but ion of title and I, therefore, ut the validity of a claim by wnership of the property. A uire proof of ownership but t may exist between the two ord and another as tenant. If even if invalid, if the tenant ssignee that will create the

18.

13.02.202 Akali Ti relationsh The relev

¶19aforesaid vs. Harvi It was he the same without p In the said and yet th only to av

A coordinate Bench in a 24 passed in CR-327-2024 titled imes Trust, held that simp hip is not sufficient to prevent a ant portion of the said decision r "10. When it has been speci trust that the revision petiti premises and when it has been then it was for the revision peti come into possession over th revision petitioner has failed t denial of relationship is not s assessing the provisional rent, Act, Court is bound to assess garb of denial of tenancy the t the property. In this context, judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Sri Vineet Kumar, 2022(3) R.C Another coordinate Bench ha aspect in the case of misuse by inder Kaur, reported in 2021(1) ld that the tenant cannot be per time and cannot continue to payment of rent by denying the d case, the rent notes already sto he tenant denied the relationship void payment of rent. The releva recent decision rendered on as Lucky Malik @ Bangali vs. le denial of landlord-tenant assessment of provisional rent. reads as thus: fically alleged by the respondent ioner is tenant in the demised denied by the revision petitioner, itioner to disclose that how he had he demised premises. When the to disclose the same then simple sufficient to stop the Court from when as per the scheme of Rent s the provisional rent. Under the tenant cannot be allowed to enjoy reliance can be placed upon the e Court in Asha Rani Gupta Vs. C.R. (Civil) 540." ad the occasion to examine the the tenant in Harvinder Singh ) Rent Control Reporter 362. rmitted to blow hot and cold at occupy the tenanted premises relationship of landlord-tenant. ood proved in civil proceedings p of landlord-tenant, ostensibly ant portion of the said judgment

is reprodu

uced hereunder:

"13. Similar issue also of this Court in Rajan @ Raj

(2) PLR 201, wherein referen two different views taken by t keeping in view the observati (supra) wherein it was noticed landlords making highly infla interim order of assessment of problem. It was noticed that th the Three Judges Bench of the Prem Lata 2003 (2) RCR (Re in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (s it was held that the view take Baldev Raj 2004 (2) PLR 834 tenant fails to make the payme has to follow and nothing mor was held in the facts of the sa tenant was that the rent deed police pressure @ Rs.2800/- pe of the tenant did not have an complaint to that effect had be counsel for the tenant was assessment had wrongly been m the same, only eviction had to f

¶14In the present ca The rent notes have alread proceedings not only by exam but also the handwriting exper been noticed and that he has owned by the present respond against the son without imple o arose before the Division Bench Kumar Vs. Rakesh Kumar 2010 nce had been made on account of the Single Benches of this Court, ons of Rakesh Wadhawan's case d that on account of unscrupulous ated claim of rent, provision for f rent had to be made to solve the he matter was further taken up by Apex Court in Vinod Kumar Vs. ent) 329, wherein the earlier view supra) was reiterated. Resultantly, en in Madan Lal & another Vs. 4 was the correct view that if the ent of rent, the order of ejectment re is required to be done. Thus, it id case that the plea taken by the had been secured by fraud under er month. It was held that the plea ny merit as no contemporaneous een made and the argument of the s rejected that the provisional made and thus, on non-deposit of follow. ase also, the situation is similar. dy been proved in the Civil ining the witness of the rent note rt. The conduct of the tenant has s admitted that the property was dent but he had chosen to litigate ading her also in order to create

multiplicity of litigation. Thus, avoid the payment of rent wh the Rent Controller wayback premises in question. In Vinod the judgment in Rakesh Wadh by the Apex Court that the bala tenant and the landlord but at t to be deprived of his legitimate for the use and occupation of t of this Court, it is the tenant w plea and had entailed the con judgment of M/s Chopra Jewe the help of the petitioner since of landlord-tenant had been d stranger, as such and in su assessment of provisional rent h

¶15In the present cas mischievously setting up a wro the landlady and thus, trying t thus, can be called a unscrupu Apex Court as the landlord ha expectations of payment of judgment in Vinod Kumar (sup

"8. Rajinder Ku Punjab Act. There also the legislative drafting serious consideration an may be put where the l tenant for rent which is n have been done in that c dilemma in adopting provisions of Section 1 , the effort of the tenant is only to hich had rightly been assessed by k on 13.03.2015 for both the d Kumar (supra) while reiterating hawan (supra), it was also noticed ance has to be struck between the the same time, the landlord is not e expectations to be paid regularly the premises. Thus, in the opinion ho has deliberately taken a wrong sequential order of eviction. The ellers (supra) would not come to e in the said case, the relationship denied and the tenancy was of a uch circumstances, the order of had been set aside. se, as noticed, the tenant has been ong plea of tenancy with the son of to avoid the payment of rent and ulous tenant in the words of the as been deprived of the legitimate rent. The relevant part of the pra) reads as under: umar Joshi's case is under the the Court had noticed a lacuna in raising a contention worthy of nd the hardship to which a tenant landlord makes a demand on the not due from him, as was found to case. The Court was faced with a g either interpretation. If the 13(2)(i) of the Act were to be so

The positi

interpreted as to require demanded (though th reference to the rate of r face the consequences premises, the provision to the tenant. On the oth of the proviso to Secti meaning the tender of th arrears of, would render said proviso. The Cou balance between the two protection given by the the same time not to dep legitimate expectation to use and occupation of h the Court provided was that case, and is hence a if the rate of rent is n matter of dispute, the te of the Act and apply to failing which he must demanded by the landlor period of default, the te he thinks to be in arrea doing so. If it is proved tendered by him was le face eviction. Such an i to the litigation and situations which may em one as arose in that case

ion in the present case is no bette e the tenant to tender the rent as he demand is exaggerated by rent or the period of default) or to s of eviction from the rented would result in causing hardship her hand, to hold the requirement on 13(2)(i) to tender the rent as he rent as the tenant thinks he is in r nugatory the requirements of the urt felt the need for striking a o situations so as not to render the Act to the tenant illusory, and at prive the landlord of his minimum o be paid regularly the rent for the his premises. The solution which in the background of the facts of a limited one. The Court said that not fixed or becomes the subject nant may have resort to Section 4 the Controller to fix the fair rent deposit the rent at the rate as rd. If there is any dispute as to the enant may deposit the rent which ars, but he must take the risk for d ultimately that the rent paid or ess than what was due, he must nterpretation gives an uncertainty does not take care of several merge in a litigation other than the before the Court." er. The tenant/respondents have

admitted and have premises inception between relationsh possession

¶20Rent Con had escap of the pr determini passed, th

execution of the lease deed dat not denied that they came in through the petitioner landlor of the tenancy upto the 19th the parties. It is apparent that hip is not bona fide and is with t n of the demised premises witho On an application moved b ntroller having realised that the ped its attention earlier, in the p resent case, was duty bound ng the same. Thus, the order he operative part of which reads a "3

I have heard the both the counsels and perus Perusal of the petition revea relied upon the lease deed An the respondent is in arrears the rate of Rs.81,000/- per written statement filed by r para No.1 of preliminary o specifically contended that th landlord nor owner of the p been able to prove the tran favour. However, perusal of merits reveals that execution ted 18.08.2018 (Annexure P-1) nto possession of the demised rd. Payment of rent since the month is a conceded position t the denial of landlord-tenant the sinister design to remain in out payment of any rent. by the petitioner/landlord, the assessment of provisional rent eculiar facts and circumstances to pass an appropriate order dated 16.05.2023 came to be as thus: e arguments advanced by sed the case file carefully. als that the petitioner has nnexure P1 to contend that of rent since 01.4.2020 at month. A perusal of the respondent reveals that in objections the respondent he petitioner is neither the premises as he has never nsfer of ownership in his f para No.2 of the reply on of lease deed between the

It is not assessmen Controller record.

¶21have been

¶22stress tha tenant/res tenant/res been raise

parties has been admitted b relationship between the p However, the respondent has the landlord and at the sa reserved the right to reclaim which he has paid to circumstance, the denial of la by the respondent is an evasi it cannot be said that th relationship between the part since eviction has been soug payment of rent, provisional be made. Accordingly, the ap to come upon 18.5.2023 for assessment of rent." disputed that at no point of tim nt of provisional rent was ever r and nothing to the contrary, h Now coming to the issue u n advanced on both sides. Learned senior counsel for at the order dated 16.05.2023 h spondents. On the contrary, spondents has emphatically argu ed in the grounds of appeal (Ann by the respondent but the parties has been denied. s not specified that who is ame time the respondent m the entire arrears of rent the petitioner. In such andlord tenant relationship ive denial and at this stage here is no landlord and ties. Therefore, as per law ght on the ground of non-l assessment of rent has to pplication is allowed. Now arguments on provisional me prior thereto, the matter of dealt with by the learned Rent has been pointed out from the upon which lengthy arguments the petitioner has laid much has not been challenged by the , learned counsel for the ued that a specific ground has nexure P-10). To appreciate the

above con clause of as well as Claim in a

¶23relevant p appeal ha order da tenant/res

16.05.202

ntroversy, reference has to be m the memorandum of appeal imp s to para 5 thereof, which are extr "Appeal 15 (1 (b) of Ea Act, against the order court of Sh. Chetesh Gu whereby UT., the prov assessed. appeal For setting aside the im

present appeal.

It is, therefore res appeal may kindly be a dated 30.05.2023, passe Gupta Rent Controller, aside." Para 5: "5 That the Ld. Trial C order dated 25.04.2022 order and the Ld. Rent rent and reviewing his o is against the facts and la A plain reading of the me portion thereof, extracted herei as been preferred against order ated

16.05.2023 as well. spondents has vehemently ar 23 could have been challenged made to the head note, prayer pugning order dated 30.05.2023 racted hereunder:- ast Punjab Urban Rent Restriction dated 30.05.2023 passed by the upta, Rent Controller Chandigarh, visional rent has been wrongly mpugned order by accepting the spectfully prayed that the present accepted and the impugned order ed by the Court of Sh. Chetesh Chandigarh may kindly be set-Court has no power to recall its 2 as it amounts to review of the Controller erred in assessing the own order dated 25.04.2022 which aw." emorandum of appeal and the inabove, would show that the dated 30.05.2023 only and not Learned counsel for the rgued that the order dated in appeal along with the order

dated 30. from para the said as of a statu appeal lie Appellate and the a period of jurisdictio Section 15

05.2023, which has been chall a 5 of the memorandum of appea spect for the following reason. It ute and is not an inherent jurisd es against an order passed by e Authority, established under Se appeal has to be preferred unde f 15 days from the date of the i on rests with the High Court un 5 of the Rent Act is extracted he "15. Vesting of appella Government.—

(1)(a) The State Gov special order, officers and au powers of appe of this Act, in s as may be speci

(b) Any person agg Controller may, of such order appellate author recorded in writ the appellate a computing the taken to obtain appealed agains

(2) On such appeal lenged, as it would be evident al. This Court would not go into t is trite that appeal is a creature diction. Under the Rent Act, an y the Rent Controller to the ection 15 (1) (a) of the Rent Act er Section 15 (1) (b) within a mpugned order. The revisional nder Section 15 (5) of Act ibid. reunder for ready reference:- ate authority on officers by State vernment may, by a general or by notification confer on such uthorities as they think fit, the ellate authorities for the purposes such area in such classes of cases fied in the order. grieved by an order passed by the within fifteen days from the date or such longer period as the rity may allow for reasons to be ting, prefer an appeal in writing to authority having jurisdiction. In period of fifteen days the time n a certified copy of the order st shall be excluded. being preferred, the appellate

¶24Appellate area, in su order to b Court in 2012(2) R Rent Con has also b of a State appealabl

authority may order stay of f pending decision on the appeal

(3) The appellate autho sending for the records of the c giving the parties an oppor necessary, after making such fu personally or through the Contr

(4) The decision of the only to such decision, an orde and shall not be liable to be c Law except as provided in sub-

(5) The High Court may any aggrieved party or on its o the records relating to any or under this Act for the purpo legality or propriety of such or such order in relation thereto as

A perusal of the aforesaid p e Authority can exercise its app uch classes of cases, as may be s be notified by the State Governm Tirlok Singh Anand vs. M/s P Rent Control Reporter 472, he ntroller under Sections 4, 10, 12 been held therein that it was not e Government to make every o e. further proceedings in the matter . ority shall decide the appeal after case from the Controller and after rtunity of being heard and, if urther inquiry as it thinks fit either roller. e appellate authority and subject er of the controller shall be final called in question in any Court of -Section(5) of this Section. y, at any time on the application of own motion, call for and examine rder passed or proceeding taken ose of satisfying itself as to the rder or proceedings and may pass s it may deem fit." provisions would show that the pellate jurisdiction only in such specified by a general or special ment. A Division Bench of this Prem Chand sons and others, ld that the orders passed by the and 13 alone are appealable. It t the intention of the legislature order of the Rent Controller as

¶25settled th foundatio petition a made to t Singh Up reasoning learned R considera answered Anand's only by w order was pale into prayer, ho his order dated 25.0 not contes own orde present c provisiona thereafter Thus, the

Learned counsel for the parti hat the order directing paym nal order to the judgment that m and as such, the same is also he authoritative decision rendere ppal vs. Anup Bansal, (2011) 1 g cannot be extended to the order Rent Controller had granted the p ation on assessment of provisiona by the Hon'ble Division Bench case (supra), the order dated 1 way of a revision before this C s appealed against before the Ap insignificance. Though the afore owever, the learned Rent Contro dated 16.05.2023, so as not to

04.2022 whereby the issues we sted that the authorities under th er. However, in the peculiar fa case, the learned Rent Contro al rent before striking the iss r making an order regarding a ere was indeed no requirement ies do not dispute that it is well ent of provisional rent is a may be passed in the Section 13 appealable. Reference may be ed by the Apex Court in Harjit 1 SCC 672. However, the said r dated 16.05.2023 whereby the prayer for listing the matter for al rent. In view of the reference h of this Court in Tirlok Singh

6.05.2023 could be challenged Court. Hence, whether the said ppellate Authority or not would esaid application has a two part ller has very cautiously worded specifically state that the order ere framed, stood recalled. It is he Rent Act cannot review their facts and circumstances of the oller not having assessed the sues, was not estopped from assessment of provisional rent. t of recalling the order dated

25.04.202 In exercis the Rent According under extr the proced Moreover the same erred in a assessmen dated 30.0

¶26denies th provisiona responden Dass, 200 Gian Sing

22 and the application ought to h se of revisional jurisdiction con Act, the said error apparent o gly, the order dated 25.04.2022 i racted issues can only be recast u dural law.

¶1Whether the respondent i demised premises? OPP

¶2Whether the petition filed in the present form ? OPR

¶3Whether the no cause of ac to file the present petition a

¶4Relief. r, there being no challenge to th having attained finality, the le allowing the appeal against the o nt of provisional rent was mad

05.2023 (Annexure P-11) cannot The next issue for considerat he tenancy or relationship of al rent has to be assessed or nt has relied upon the judgments 03(1) Rent Control Reporter gh, 2003(1) Rent Control Rep have been allowed only in part. nferred under Section 15 (5) of on the record can be set right. is restored to the extent that the under the relevant provisions of is liable to be evicted from the by petitioner is not maintainable ction ever accrued to the petitioner against the respondents? OPR. he order dated 16.05.2023 and earned Appellate Authority has order dated 30.05.2023 whereby de. Hence, the impugned order t be sustained in law. tion is that wherever the tenant landlord and tenant, whether not. Leaned counsel for the s in Hukma Devi vs. Bhagwan r 533, Ramanand Shastri vs. porter 735, Yashpal Singla vs.

Vijay Kum Mohan L Sarabjit S Manmoha A perusal cases, the status wa have not o a position petitioner

01.09.201 a cheque for the m by the Ba Section 1 petitioner also issue of May, payment,

¶27that in the Prakash, r be raised a

mar, 2004(1) Rent Control Re Lal, 2004(2) Rent Control Rep Singh, 2006(2) Rent Control Re an Singh and another, 2008(1) l of the aforesaid precedents s tenant had been inducted by the as being disputed. In the instan only admitted the lease deed (An n to dispute that they had being r/landlord for 19 months since i 18 to 31.03.2020. Not only that, dated 07.04.2020, for an amou month of April 2020, which upon ank owing to insufficient funds 38 of the Negotiable Instrumen r/landlord is still pending. Furth ed cheques to discharge their liab June and July, 2020 and on they were also dishonoured. Learned counsel for the respo e light of the law laid down in S reported as 2002 (3) SCC 375, de as a defence by the tenant. A per eporter 718, Jagdish Singh vs. orter 114, Narinder Singh vs. eporter 226 and Mrs. Preeti vs. ) Rent Control Reporter 307. hows that in none of the said e same person (landlord), whose nt case, the tenant/respondents nnexure P-1) but are also not in regularly tendering rent to the inception of tenancy, i.e. from the respondents had also issued unt of Rs.72,900/- towards rent n presentation was dishonoured s. A criminal complaint under nts Act, 1881, instituted by the her, the tenant/respondents had bility to pay rent for the months presentation to the Bank for ondent has emphatically argued Sheela v. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem enial of title of the landlord could rusal of the said judgment reveals

that their provisions 1961'), w former sta maintaine relevant d reference:

Lordships of the Hon'ble Supr of M.P. Accommodation Contro which are not pari materia to tho atute, section 12(1)(f) contempl ed by an owner-landlord and discussion from the said judgm : "10. While seeking an ejectm fide requirement under clause required to allege and prove no but also that he is the "own definitions of "landlord" and "

(b) and (i) of Section 2 of the the Act the concept of landlord ownership. A person may be "owner" of the premises. Th landlordship is the factum entitlement to receive the re Such receiving or right to rece own account of the landlord o benefit of any other person. A receiver are also included in Such landlord would be entitle tenant on one or more of such ambit of Section 12(1) of the A landlord to be an owner als successfully maintain a claim contemplates a claim for evict owner-landlord and not a la course, we may hasten to reme Court were examining the ol Act, 1961 (for short, 'Act of ose under the Rent Act. In the lates a claim for eviction being not a landlord merely. The ment is extracted hereunder for ment on the ground of bona

(f) abovesaid the landlord is ot only that he is a "landlord" ner" of the premises. The "tenant" as given in clauses Act make it clear that under dship is different from that of a "landlord" though not an he factor determinative of of his receiving or his nt of any accommodation. eive the rent may be on the or on account of or for the A trustee, a guardian and a the definition of landlord. ed to seek an eviction of the h grounds falling within the Act which do not require the so so as to be entitled to m for eviction. Clause (f) tion being maintained by an andlord merely. Though of add, that the concept of

ownership in a landlord-tenant control law has to be distingui suit. Ownership is a relative depends on the context in whic legislation, the landlord can be entitled in his own legal right and on behalf of someone else, to retain, control, hold and us What may suffice and hold goo landlord-tenant litigation prob enough to successfully sustain title suit. In M.M. Quasim v. M 3 SCC 36] it was held that an seek eviction on the ground of one who has a right against the building in his own right and title lesser than his own. In D Chandra [1988 Supp SCC 710 essential to sustain a claim 12(1)(f) of the Act to establis owner of the premises. Howe ownership of the landlord havi of an admission of the owners the defendant in reply to th institution of the suit and the plaintiff as the owner of the receipts issued by the landlord of time. Thus, the burden of p between landlord and tenant relationship is either admitted o in a title suit and lesser quantu what would be needed in a s person setting up a contending t litigation governed by rent ished from the one in a title term, the import whereof ch it is used. In rent control said to be the owner if he is t, as distinguished from for , to evict the tenant and then se the premises for himself. od as proof of ownership in a bably may or may not be n a claim for ownership in a Manohar Lal Sharma [(1981) n "owner-landlord" who can f his personal requirement is e whole world to occupy the d exclude anyone holding a Dilbagrai Punjabi v. Sharad 0] this Court held that it was of eviction under Section sh that the plaintiff was the ever, the Court upheld the ing been proved on the basis hip of the plaintiff made by he notice given before the recital of the name of the e property contained in the d to the tenant over a period proving ownership in a suit where the landlord-tenant or proved is not so heavy as um of proof may suffice than suit based on title against a title while disputing the title

The afore coordinate (supra), w title does provision judgment

of the plaintiff. Nevertheles ownership, in the sense as it c one of the ingredients of the gr of the Act." esaid judgment was also consi e Bench of this Court in Ragh wherein it was held that in rent s not automatically determine in the rent legislation, The reads as thus:- "VI. In rent control proceedin automatically forfeit tenancy, if in the State legislation; dete defence is still relevant.

¶8The learned counsel app respondent has relied on deci been referred to above, where o unnecessary to decide on the opportunity to tenant, if the ten the landlord. In this case, if it who having taken the proper denying the tenancy, it could was not bonafide and it wou forfeiture as enunciated under would be estopped by taking s Section 117 of the Evidence provisions would apply in a could be stated to be even bo was actually holding that for ss, pleading and proving arries in rent control law, is round under Section 12(1)(f) idered and distinguished by a hubir Chand Mahajan's case control proceedings, denial of tenancy, if there is no such relevant portion of the said ngs, denial of title will not if there is no such provision ermination of bonafides of pearing on behalf of the sions which I have already our courts have held that it is e rent payable and give an nant was denying the title of t is merely a case of tenant rty from the landlord was be stated that such a denial uld attract the principle of Section 111 of the Act and such contention by virtue of e Act. Neither of these situation where the denial onafide. The Supreme Court rfeiture will not entail in

situation where Rent Control Supreme court in Sheela v. Parkash 2002 (3) SCC 375, m earlier judgment rendered i Ahmad Khan v. Municipal Bo "the principle of determinatio consequent upon denial of applicable where rent control such legislation while extendin eviction, does not recognise su ground for termination of tena The Supreme Court judgment w on was actually dealing with t Accommodation Control Act, 1 Rent Control legislation which ground of eviction. The Punjab not make it a ground. That in difference. The court which co of deposit should be made wo whether the denial is bonafide o this court, referred to abo qualification which it did not h that a Rent Controller would opportunity on the basis of Wadhawan's case (supra) in a title is bonafide.

¶9The four decisions were con tenant was found to be unjusti some of the cases, the tena themselves. In such situation would be no purpose served directing the amount to be paid himself, says that he is not liab Act would intervene. The Firm Prahlad Rai Prem making a reference to its own in Raja Mohammad Amir oard of Sitapur was holding on of tenancy by forfeiture lessor's title may not be l legislation intervenes and ng protection to tenants from uch denial or disclaimer as a ancy and eviction of tenant". which this court was relying the case of Madhya Pradesh 1961. There are several State recognise denial of title as a b Rent Restriction Act does my view will make all the onsiders whether a direction ould still be required to find or not. The four decisions of ove, ought to contain a have an occasion to consider still be required to give an f the decision in Rakesh situation where the denial of nfronting the situation where ified in denying the title. In ant was setting up title in ns, it is obvious that there by determining a rent and d. A person who sets up title ble to pay any rent, the issue

¶28submitted provisiona be allowe directed t tenant/res hand, lear aforesaid valuable

of determination of rent simp situation. On the contrary, if a rent is payable but it is not the claims and that too rent is paid person who is applying the co two duties: One, he is require jural relationship of landlord an such relationship exist, the p summarily. If he finds that such proceed to follow the second d rent payable. If the quantum is decision in Rakesh Wadhawan to calculate the amount and di on the next date of hearing. Th the defence questioning the qua eviction. The issue of malafid court determines the quantum seen only if there is a failure to even after letting the order beco Learned counsel for the pet d that as the tenant/responde al rent, no further opportunity of ed to them. He, thus, prayed that to pass an order of eviction in spondents have defaulted in tend rned counsel for the respondent order being restored, the respo right to avoid their eviction fr ly does not arise in such a tenant says that a particular e amount which the landlord d to a person other than the ourt, the Rent Controller has ed to find that there existed nd tenant. If he finds that no petition must be dismissed h relationship exists he shall duty, namely, the quantum of determined then in terms of n's case (supra), he is bound irect the amounts to be paid he Court cannot characterise antum as malafide and direct des is irrelevant, while the of rent. The conduct will be o comply with the directions, ome final." titioner before resting his case ents have not deposited the f tendering the same deserves to t the learned Rent Controller be favour of the landlord, for the dering the rent due. On the other ts has contended that upon the ndents would be deprived of a rom the demised premises, by

tendering opportuni

¶29is notable of the pro the said p learned A this Court date of 03 Appellate considera dated 01.0 the next disposal tenant/res rent due. they mak eviction a

¶30petition i learned A dated 30. for tende

the rent assessed vide order d ity deserves to be granted to them I have given my thoughtful c e that the learned Rent Controlle ovisional rent assessed upto 03 eriod, the tenant/respondents had Appellate Authority on 13.06.202 t that during the pendency of th

3.07.2023 was nearing, a reques e Authority to dispose of the ma ation on the application for interim

07.2023, operation of the order d date of hearing, which interim of the appeal. In the afores spondents deserve to be afforde It is only thereafter that their c ke the deposit or default, where are liable to be passed. On a conspectus of the a s partly allowed. The order da Appellate Authority, is set asid

05.2023. The Rent Controller w ering the upto date rent due a dated 30.05.2023. As such, an m to tender the rent as assessed. consideration to the aforesaid. It er had granted time for payment .07.2023. Before the expiry of d preferred an appeal before the

¶23It is brought to the notice of he said appeal as the stipulated st was made before the learned ain rent appeal itself instead of m stay. Accordingly, vide order dated 30.05.2023 was stayed till m stay continued till the final said given circumstances, the ed an opportunity to tender the conduct could be seen whether eafter the necessary orders for aforesaid, the present revision ated 31.08.2023 passed by the de, thereby restoring the order would proceed to notify a date at the rate of provisional rent

assessed i the order modified issues we proceedin tenant/res provisiona

31.

32.

May 31, sumit.k

in terms of the aforesaid order. r dated 16.05.2023, in exercise to the extent that the order d ere cast stands restored. Howeve ngs on merits would co spondents are afforded an oppo al rent due, as aforesaid. Revision petition is disposed No order as to costs. , 2024 It is, however, made clear that e of revisional jurisdiction, is dated 25.04.2022 whereby the er, it is made clear that further ommence only after the rtunity to tender the upto date of accordingly.

(VIKAS SURI) JUDGE