- (1.) Respondent had filed the petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 seeking ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of non-payment of rent. Petitioner, in its reply, denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was further averred that the respondent was not the owner of the property in question. It was averred that the lease deed dated 1.12.1986 was bogus document and was liable to be declared as null and void. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Rent Controller:- 1.Whether the respondent is a tenant under the petitioner vide lease deed dated 1.12.86 on the monthly rent of Rs. 1600/- as alleged ? OPP 2.Whether the respondent has failed to pay the arrears of rent from April 2001 to November 2002, if so, to what effect? OPP 3.Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 4.Whether the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition ? OPD 5.Whether the petitioner has no cause of action to file the present petition ? OPD 6.Whether the court has no jurisdiction to try the present petition ? OPD 7.Whether the petition is bad for misjoinder and nonjoinder of necessary parties? OPD 8.Relief.
(2.) Rent Controller vide order dated 9.9.2004 allowed the ejectment petition. The said judgment was upheld by the Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 6.12.2004. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner-tenant.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned orders were liable to be set aside as the Rent Controller had failed to assess the provisional rent in terms of decision of the Apex Court in 'Rakesh Wadhawan versus M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, 2002 2 RentLR 36'. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance on 'Gurpreet Singh and another versus Brijinder Bhardwaj and another, 2011 163 PunLR 212to support his arguments that the Rent Controller was duty bound to assess the provisional rent. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that since the petitioner had disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the Rent Controller was not required to assess the provisional rent. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on 'Mrs. Preeti Versus Manmohan Singh and another, 2008 2 RCR(Civ) 185, wherein it was held as under:- "The aforementioned contention, in my considered opinion is without merit. Where a tenant, proceeds to dispute the locus standi or the ownership of the landlord and thereupon denies the relationship of landlord and tenant, such a tenant in essence, asserts a positive plea of refusal to tender rent. Whether such a tenant would be entitled to the protection of Section 13 of the Act, as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan's case has been answered in a host of judgements by this Court, namely; Ramanand Shastri V. Gian Singh . A relevant extract from the aforementioned judgment would be appropriate : "I have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the tenantpetitioner and am of the view that the same are devoid of merit. The first submission that the tenantpetitioner was entitled to an order of assessment by the Rent Controller in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Wahdawan would not require any detailed consideration because in cases where the tenant disputes the relationship of landlord and tenant it is not expected of the Rent Controller to pass an assessment order of rent directing the tenant to pay that rent. In such cases, exercise to be taken by the Rent Controller would be futile and would rather go contrary to the stand of the parties. After all framing of assessment order is not a mere ritual by the Rent Controller that in every case the Rent Controller must pass such an order. Moreover, even if the Rent Controller passes such an order and the tenant maintains his stand of denying the relationship then he cannot be asked to pay the rent. It would also be unjust that the tenant would first get the finding of subsisting relationship and then deposit the rent. Such a course would also be unfair and unjust to the landlord-respondent. Therefore, I have no hesitation in rejecting the first argument raised by the learned counsel.";