VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is against an order passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, assessing the provisional rent for the demised premises to be Rs. 2,000/- p.m., instead of Rs. 375/- p.m., as assessed earlier on 9.8.2003.
(2.) THE respondent-landlord filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner herein and claimed that the rate of rent of the booth in dispute was Rs. 2,000/- p.m., with a stipulation of increase of 10% after every year. It was further claimed in the eviction petition that the rate of rent was Rs. 2,622/- p.m. upto 10.12.1996 and Rs. 2,928/- p.m. w.e.f. 1.12.1997 and Rs. 3,220/- p.m., w.e.f. 10.12.1998 onwards. The petitioner opposed this application and claimed that the rate of rent was Rs. 375/- p.m. The learned Rent Controller noticed that as the respondent landlord had claimed that a rent note has been executed, it was his duty to have produced the same, but he did not. The learned Rent Controller further noticed that an injunction suit was filed by M/s. Mehra Enterprises against the petitioner in which ex parte proceedings were taken and in said suit the rent claimed was Rs. 375/- p.m. and accordingly assessment was made at Rs. 375/- p.m. Thereafter, application was moved by the respondent landlord for placing on record a copy of the rent note executed between the parties. The said application was opposed primarily on the ground that no review is permissible under the provisions of the East Punjab (Urban Rent Restriction) Act. The execution of the rent note was also disputed. The learned Rent Controller accepted the application by observing that the provisional rent was assessed in the absence of the rent agreement. As the same has been produced now, it would be in the interest of justice to assess the provisional rent in view of the said rent agreement. The learned Rent Controller also expressed an opinion that the re-assessment of provisional rent would not amount to review of order dated 9.8.2003. Sh. V.K. Jain, Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners has challenged the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, primarily on the ground that the impugned order is without jurisdiction as the learned Rent Controller has assumed the jurisdiction of review which did not vest in him. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner therefore, is that the remedy of review is a statutory remedy created by the statute and in the absence of the same the court does not have any inherent jurisdiction to review an order passed by the said authority. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Balkishan Nathani and others, AIR 1967 SC 394. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Harbhajan Singh v. Karam Singh and others, AIR 1966 SC 641, wherein the Supreme Court was pleased to lay down that there was no provision in the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act to review and therefore, in the absence of any such express power, the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, was not competent to review the order passed under Section 42 of the Act. The learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioners thereafter placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Bimla Bai v. Baijnath Singh Chandel, 2000(2) RCR(Rent) 598 (M.P.) 2001(1) RLR 58 to contend that the Rent Controller has no power to review its own order. Paras 4 and 5 of the said judgment read as under :- "4. The Rent Controlling Authority dismissed all the cases filed by the applicant against all the tenants by order dated 31.12.1997. It held that since the applicant did not produce the registered sale-deed 14.6.1985, she could not claim to be the landlady of the non-applicants. 5. The order dated 31.12.1997 was subsequently reviewed by the Rent Controlling Authority by order dated 30.3.1998 and it was set aside. The applicant was given an opportunity to lead further evidence."
(3.) LEARNED Senior Counsel for the petitioners thereafter placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kewal Chand Mimani by Lrs. v. S.K. Sen, 2001(2) RCR(Rent) 158 : 2001(3) RCR(Civil) 746 : 2001(2) RLR 255 to contend that power of review is not an inherent power and it has to be conferred by law specifically or by necessary implication. He also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of National Hotel (Firm) Bombay and others v. Rukaiyabai and others, 1985(2) RCR 112 to contend that power of review was not inherent as it has to be conferred by law specifically or by necessary implication. He further placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Jagdish Parshad v. Mehar Chand and another, 1993(1) R.R.R. 206 : 1993(1) RCR 459, to contend that the Rent Act does not confer any power on Rent Controller or Appellate Authority to review their own order. In the said judgment, it was also held that the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority are not courts and therefore, the review exercised by the civil Court under CPC cannot be exercised by them. The learned Senior Counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Monm and another v. Gopinath, 1999(1) RLR 510, to contend that when there is no provision of filing a review petition in the Act, the review cannot be held to be maintainable. Learned Senior Counsel thereafter placed reliance upon judgment in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan and others v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and others, 2002(5) RCR(Rent) 514 (SC) : 2002(5) SCC 440 to contend that under the provisions of the Act, it is a duty of the Controller to asses the arrears of rent, the interest on such arrears and also the cost of the application. Thus the decision in respect of provisional rent has to be taken as a decision which cannot be subsequently reviewed. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner lastly placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa and others, 2000(4) RCR(Criminal) 650 : 2001(1) SCC 169 to contend that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to lay down that power to review cannot be exercised even under inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.;