High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Amardeep Kaur vs Meet Ram on 22 July, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amardeep Kaur vs Meet Ram on 22 July, 2009
      IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
                  HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


                               Civil Revision No.6519 of 2008 (O&M)
                                     Date of decision: July 22, 2009.


Amardeep Kaur
                                                          ...Petitioner(s)

            v.

Meet Ram

                                                          ...Respondent(s)


CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT


1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Present:    Shri Arun Takhi, Advocate, for the petitioner.

            Shri Sanjiv Pandit, Advocate, for the respondent.

                                 ORDER

Surya Kant, J. – (Oral):

This revision petition is directed against the order dated

15.9.2008 passed by the Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur, whereby he has

declined to assess the provisional rent on the ground that the respondent-

tenant has disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant between the

parties. Reliance has been placed upon a decision of this Court in Mrs.

Preeti v. Manmohan Singh & Anr., (2008-3) PLR 591.

Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, learned

counsel for the parties have been heard at some length.

It appears that the respondent-tenant has come up with the plea

that the demised premises is owned by one Gurbachan Dass. The petitioner,
on the other hand, relies upon a compromise arrived at between her and

Gurbachan Dass. In the said civil suit No.386 of 2005 Gurbachan Dass is

stated to have conceded her ownership qua the suit property, as per

compromise Annexure P-2.

Be that as it may, in view of the denial of relationship of

landlord and tenant, the Rent Controller has already framed issue No.1, as to

“whether there is relationship of landlady and tenant between the parties”.

In Mrs. Preeti’s case (supra) referred to by the Rent Controller, this Court

has held that where the relationship of landlady and tenant is denied by the

tenant as a mala fide attempt to avoid payment of rent, the same shall not be

taken as a valid plea to absolve the tenant from tendering the arrears of

provisionally assessed rent in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Rakesh Wadhawan v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation,

(2002-2) PLR 370.

Be that as it may, the Rent Controller has already framed issue

No.1, reproduced above. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of

with a direction that, let the said issue be treated as a preliminary issue and

decided. Since the respondent-tenant has consciously dis-owned the

relationship of landlady and tenant, it is directed that if the said issue No.1

is decided against the respondent-tenant, he shall not be entitled to any

further opportunity to tender arrears of rent and in that event, the Rent

Controller shall be well within its right to pass an order of eviction against

him for non-payment of rent. The issue shall be decided as early as possible

and preferably within six months.

Dasti.



July 22, 2009.                                      [ Surya Kant ]
kadyan                                                   Judge