ANIL KUMAR Vs. SNEH JAIN
LAWS(P&H)-2007-12-14
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on December 06,2007

ANIL KUMAR Appellant
VERSUS
Sneh Jain Respondents

JUDGEMENT

VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) PRESENT revision petition has been filed against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller assessing provisional rent payable by the petitioner w.e.f. 1.7.2003 to March, 2006 at the rate of Rs. 2500/-.
(2.) FOR assessing the provisional rent the learned Rent Controller has placed reliance on the agreement/rent note executed between the parties vide which the rate of rent agreed was Rs. 2500/- per month. Though the petitioner denied the rent note which was placed on record by the respondent-landlord. However, the learned Rent Controller has relied upon the said document by comparing the signatures of the petitioner on his written statement as well as power of attorney thereby coming to the conclusion that this was prima facie a valid document for the purpose of assessing the provisional rent. The document relied upon by the petitioner i.e. the income tax return submitted by him as well as document showing that the rate of rent of adjoining shop have been disbelieved by the learned trial court on the ground that that were self serving documents prepared by the petitioner in which the respondent landlord has no role to play. The learned Rent Controller did not rely on the order of the learned Rent Controller qua the other shops in which the rate of rent assessed was Rs. 1000/- per month. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, firstly on the ground that in the agreement/rent note it has been mentioned that if tenant would be willing to continue after the period of 5 years in that event the rate of rent would be increased to Rs. 5000/- per month. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the rent petition is also based on the said pleadings, claiming that rent has to be increased from Rs. 2500/- to Rs. 5000/- per month in case the tenancy is to continue beyond 5 years.
(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, is that the said document being compulsorily registrable could not be read in evidence for want of registration.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.