G.R. Majithia, J. - (1.) THE landlords, aggrieved against the order of the Appellate Authority which, on appeal, reversed that of the Rent Controller and dismissed their petition for evicting the tenant -Respondents from the demised premises, have come up in revision to this Court.
(2.) THE revision petition initially came up for hearing before me sitting singly. On behalf of the tenant -Respondents, it was canvassed that a landlord -could increase rent by agreement and any increase so made could be legally recovered. The lessor could only recover fair rent from the lessee and in support of this submission, reliance -was placed upon Single Bench decision of this Court in Makhan Lal v. Anand Parkash, 1986 H.R.R. 358. I doubted the correctness of the submission made and requested my Lord the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench for deciding the point arising for adjudication in this petition. 1 also directed that the revision petition be disposed of by the larger Bench. It is how this petition has been placed before us for disposal. The landlord -Petitioners leased out ground floor of Shop -cum -Office No. 189 -190 -191, Sector 17 -C, Chandigarh to the lessee -Respondents under lease deed dated November 3,1980, Ex. A -1, on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 9,000. The tenancy was to commence from October 1, 1980. The eviction was sought on the ground that the lessees were in arrears of rent since February 1,1984. The eviction petition was filed before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh on June 2, 1984. After the service of notice, the lessee appeared before the Bent Controller on August 1, 1984 and the Rent Controller assessed Rs. 80 as costs of the (petition and the lessees' counsel made the following statement: I tender a sum of Rs. 39,600 as arrears of rent from 1st February, 1984 to 31st May, 1984 at the rate of Rs. 9,900 p.m., Rs. 730 as interest and Rs. 80 as costs total amounting to Rs. 40,380. The counsel for the lessors accepted the tender under protest on the ground that it was insufficient.
(3.) THE lessees filed their written statement on September 10, 1984. It was, inter alia, pleaded that the arrears of rent having been tendered on the first date of hearing, the petition deserved dismissal on that short ground alone. Subsequently, amended written statement was filed on behalf of the lessees. It was pleaded therein that the lessors were only entitled to recover rent at the rate of Rs. 9,000 per mensem and not at the rate of Rs. 9,900 per mensem. The enhanced rent could not be claimed in view of the provisions of Section 7 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, the Act) and that the rent at the enhanced rate was tendered on the first date of hearing. It was further pleaded that the lessees were entitled to the refund of Rs. 27,000 collected by the lessors as security at the time of the execution of the lease deed and that they were entitled to adjustment of this amount against the future rent.;