Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) THE landlord is in revision against the order dated 24.02.2011 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Dasuya by which eviction petition filed by him under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short "the Act"] for seeking eviction of the tenant from the demised premises (shop) has been dismissed.
(2.) AS per the facts given by learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the eviction petition was filed on 31.07.1991, inter alia, on the ground of nonpayment of rent. The Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition vide its order dated 07.02.1994 but that order was reversed in appeal on 01.10.1996 and the Appellate Authority remanded the case back to the Rent Controller after framing some issues. On 14.10.1997, the tenant was again ordered to be evicted but the said order of the Rent Controller was set aside by the Appellate Authority on 21.12.2000. The landlord then filed CR No. 2537 of 2001 in this Court in which the following order was passed on 14.12.2010 : Counsel for the parties are in agreement that the Rent Controller had not provisionally assessed the rent and no opportunity was given to the tenant -Respondent to deposit the rent. Hence, it is submitted that the Rent Controller had wrongly ordered eviction of the tenant Respondent which had been set aside by the Appellate Authority. Counsel for the parties have taken a very fair stand that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rakesh Wadhawan v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation,, 2002(5) SC 440, the Rent Controller be directed to assess the provisional rent along with interest and cost. Hence, the present revision petition is accepted. The matter is remanded back to the Rent Controller to try the eviction petition afresh after following the due procedure as laid down in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra). The parties are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 06.01.2011. The Rent Controller is directed to decide the eviction petition within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In pursuance thereof, the matter was again taken up by the Rent Controller who had opined that no rent is due to be paid by the tenant to the landlord. In this regard, the Rent Controller had recorded the following finding : 6. This Court has gone through the contents of the petition as well as reply and documents placed on file i.e. agreement dated 17.12.1985 bank receipt, statement of account of Petitioner Gurcharan Singh, copy of deed writer register. This Court is fully agreed with the contention raised by the ld. Counsel for the Respondent that for assessing the rate of rent this Court has to read agreement as well as entry of the register of deed writer together because both are the result of one and same transaction. Perusal of agreement reveals that the word month' is written above the 12th line after the word 10 rupees and there is also seems to be cutting over word "month' in the 12th and 13th line of agreement. On the other hand in deed writer register entry Ex.RW2/A it is clearly mentioned that rent will be increased at the rate of Rs. 10/ - per annum and Petitioner has not mentioned that why word per year is mentioned in the above entry and the above entry is signed by the Petitioner. After going through the both the agreement as well as entry of the deed writer register it is prima facie proved on the file that rate of rent was fixed @ Rs. 400/ - per month till Dec. 1987. Thereafter, it was agreed to be increased by Rs. 10/ - per year and not per month. Further statement of account of Petitioner and bank receipt prima facie proved that Respondent has also deposited the rent @ Rs. 440/ - per month till 1991 in the bank account of Petitioner meaning thereby it is prima facie proved that Respondent has been paying the rent regularly to the Petitioner as per compromise of agreement. There is nothing due towards the Respondent as arrears of rent till 31.07.1991 the date of filing the petition. Since there is nothing due towards the Respondent being arrears of rent. Regarding the attached list of the Petitioner, this Court is of view that this Court has to access the provision rent from July 1988 till the filing of the petition and not up to 2010 as alleged by the Petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is nothing due from Respondent and nothing has to be tendered by the Respondent.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Rent Controller has not appreciated the detail of arrears of rent Annexure P -5 attached with the record of the present case.;