Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against order dated 8.12.2010 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh by which the provisional rent has been assessed @ Rs. 1000/ - per month from 1.4.2009 upto the date of filing of the petition i.e. 16.3.2010 along with interest @ 6% per annum and cost of Rs. 500/ -. Unsatisfied landlord has come in the revision only with respect to the rate of rent.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the rate of rent was Rs. 2200/ - per month, which has been arbitrarily fixed by the learned Rent Controller @ Rs. 1000/ - per month. He submits that in the year 2007, the Petitioner became the owner of the demised premises and automatically stepped into the shoes of the landlord. He filed the eviction petition on 16.3.2010 on the ground of nonpayment of rent and personal necessity. He had claimed rent from 1.4.2009 till 16.3.2010 @ Rs. 2200/ - per month but the learned Rent Controller has assessed the provisional rent @ Rs. 1000/ - per month while relying upon a judgment rendered in the case of "Yashpal v. Baba Kashmir Gir", 2008(3) Civil Court Cases 412 and also on the ground that the Income Tax Returns are the self serving documents which can not be relied upon. Opening his submission, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that there is no dispute between the parties that earlier Petitioner No. 1 was the owner and landlord of the demised premises but in 2007 Petitioner No. 2 became owner. Since then the rent is being paid by the tenant to Petitioner No. 2, which is shown in his Income Tax Returns for the assessment years 2007 -08, 2008 -09 and 2009 -2010. In order to substantiate his arguments, he has referred to schedule HP of the Income Tax Return for the assessment year 2007 -2008, which carries details of income from house property wherein name of the tenant Ved Parkash Aggarwal is categorically mentioned and the rent for a period of 11 months is shown as Rs. 24,200/ -. In the subsequent Income Tax Return for the assessment year 2008 -2009 the same entry is there and the rent is shown as Rs. 26,400/ - for 12 months, in the third Income Tax Return for the assessment year 2009 -2010 also the position is the same but in the Income Tax Return for the assessment year 2010 -2011, he has not shown the income of rent from Ved Parkash Aggarwal rather he has shown the income form Purushottam Somani, who is occupying the second floor of the demised premises. It is submitted that the documents of Income Tax Returns are not manufactured documents. He also submits that the judgment, which has been relied upon in the case of Yashpal (Supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case as it pertains to the case of sub -tenancy.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that signatures of Ved Parkash Aggarwal on the settlement dated 20.7.1987 have been forged. She also submits that actually landlord is Petitioner No. 1 although Petitioner No. 2 stepped into his shoes only in the year 2007. At this stage of provisional assessment of rent, the Court has to rely upon the available document.;