- (1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 18.3.2010 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Faridabad by which order of eviction dated 22.1.2010 passed by the Rent Controller has been set aside.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/landlord filed an eviction petition against the respondent/tenant, inter-alia, on the ground of non-payment of rent. The eviction petition was contested by the respondent/tenant by filing written statement in which it was alleged that the rent of the demised premises is Rs. 2000/- per month and the petitioner is not the landlord as the demised premises is owned by his wife. Since the petitioner had claimed the rent @ Rs. 7000/- per month and the respondent had alleged that the rent was Rs. 2000/- per month, the Rent Controller vide his order dated 19.11.2009 called for the report of the Tehsildar of the area concerned with regard to the rate of rent in the surrounding area having two rooms on the ground floor, an accommodation of a similar nature and condition. The Tehsildar vide his report dated 29.11.2009, submitted that similar accommodation would fetch rent of Rs. 3000/- per month. The Rent Controller neither accepted the rent claimed by the landlord nor by the tenant and even assessed by the Tehsildar, rather the rent was assessed by the Rent Controller himself @ Rs. 3800/- per month and on the basis thereof, the amount payable was assessed at Rs. 1,08,691/- which was ordered to be paid on or before 22.12.2009. The order passed by the Rent Controller on 11.12.2009 reads thus:- Present: Sh. Deepak Gera Advocate, for the petitioner Sh. Rajesh Khanna, Advocate, for the respondent. Report of Tehsildar regarding rent of the premises in question perused. Arguments heard. In the course of arguments ld. Counsel for the respondent has stated that the respondent is not the tenant of the petitioner and since the tenancy itself is disputed, therefore, the court of Rent Controller is not supposed to assess the provisional rent of the premises. On the other hand Id. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that so far as the tenancy is concerned, it is admitted by the respondent in his reply but therein it is stated that the respondent is not tenant of the petitioner but is tenant of the wife of petitioner. Based upon this line of argument Id. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that rent Controller is within its power to assess the provisional rate of rent once tenancy is admitted, no matter the landlord may be the petitioner or wife of the petitioner. A perusal of the reply filed to the petition on behalf of the respondent clearly shows that premises in question were let out to the respondent w.e.f. July 2007 and is used by the respondent for the purposes of godown. Further it is stated that respondent has been paying rent of the said premises regularly to the wife of the petitioner namely Smt. Shakuntla. The premises were let out to the respondent by the wife of petitioner only. In view of the above averments made in the reply I am satisfied that the tenancy of premises in question is admitted by the respondent and therefore, provisional rent assessed by the Rent Controller. No rent agreement has been placed on record by either of the parties. Petitioner has contended that premises were Jet out on monthly rent of Rs. 7000/- with provision of 10% increase every year. On the other hand, respondent has stated in the reply that premises in question were taken on monthly rent of Rs. 2000/- and are being used for the purpose of godown. In order to have clear grasp of the matter report of the Area Tehsildar was called for by the Court. In his report, Tehsildar has stated that rent of two rooms at the ground floor of the premises is around Rs. 3000/- per month. Though, this report is disputed by the Id. Counsel for the petitioner. In support of its position, Id. Counsel for the petitioner has placed on record at this stage certain affidavits of the residents of that locality stating that rent of two rooms in the locality is around Rs. 7000/- or more. In the circumstances of the case and from the material placed on record, I am of the opinion that since the rented premises are being used for commercial purpose i.e. godown the rent of the said premises is assessed to be Rs. 3800/- per month. The respondent is allegedly under arrears of rent since October 2007 i.e. for a period of 26 months. Therefore, the rent for the period of 26 months works out to be Rs. 98,800/- and the amount of interest works to be Rs. 8891/-approximately. Upon above stated amount cost of Rs. 1000/- is to be paid by the respondent and in this matter the total provisional rent is assessed as Rs. 98,800/- + Rs. 8891/- + Rs. 1000/- i.e. Rs. 1,08,691/-. The above amount to be deposited by the respondent on or before 22.12.09. Now to come upon 22.12.09 for tendering of the provisional rent assessed above.
(3.) Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the tenant filed a revision petition bearing CR No. 7586 of 2009 in this Court in which he had raised two grievances, firstly, that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as it was alleged that he is a tenant of the wife of the present petitioner who is the owner of the demised premises and secondly, the rate of rent was Rs. 2000/- per month which has been erroneously assessed at the rate of Rs. 3800/- per month. In support of his first contention, the tenant/respondent had relied upon three decisions of this Court in the cases of Yashpal Singla v. Vijay Kumar, 2004 138 PunLR 504, Narinder Singh v. Sarbjit Singh, 2007 146 PunLR 405 and Mrs. Preeti v. Manmohan Singh and another, 2008 151 PunLR 591.;