Civil Revision No.7058 of 2008 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CR No.7058 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of Decision:-August 17,2009
Satwant Kaur ....Petitioner
Versus
Amit Mehta and others ....Respondents
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 Reports or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported to the Digest?
Present: Shri H.S.Bhullar, Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
Surya Kant, J. (Oral):
This revision petition is directed by the tenant whose
cross claim for the refund of the alleged excess payment of rent to
the respondent-landlords has been firstly rejected by the Rent
Controller, Chandigarh, vide his order dated 24.4.2006 and thereafter
upheld by the Appellate Authority vide its impugned judgment dated
30.5.2008.
It appears from the impugned orders that in an eviction
petition filed by the respondent-landlords against the petitioner-tenant
(deceased Devinder Singh now being represented by his legal heirs),
a compromise was effected between the parties and in terms thereof,
the petitioner-tenant agreed to pay the future rent at the rate of
Rs.25,000/- per month with effect from 1.6.2001 excluding the
Civil Revision No.7058 of 2008 (O&M) 2
electricity and water charges. He also agreed to pay a sum of
Rs.1,90,000/- out of the arrears of rent uptill 30.5.2001 and agreed to
issue cheques for the payment of Rs.1,85,000/- after paying
Rs.5000/- in cash. The eviction petition was thereafter dismissed as
withdrawn on 2.6.2001 on the statement made by the counsel for the
landlords, in which no reference to the said compromise was made
by learned counsel for the landlord-respondents.
The respondent-landlords have thereafter filed another
eviction petition on the ground of non payment of arrears of rent. The
petitioner-tenant, while questioning the compromise deed Ex.P1
effected between the parties in the earlier eviction petition, raised a
counter claim, for the refund of the excess payment taken from him in
terms of the said compromise.
The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority
both have turned down the claim of the tenant regarding refund, after
observing that as per the compromise deed Ex.P1, relationship of
tenant and landlords is not in dispute nor there can be a controversy
regarding rate of rent.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the
petitioner has already filed a separate civil suit challenging the
validity of the compromise deed Ex.P1, the observations made by the
Courts below, especially the Appellate Authority in para Nos.13 and
17 of the impugned judgment dated 30.5.2008 would cause prejudice
to the petitioner’s claim in the pending suit.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on
perusal of the impugned orders, I am of the considered view that no
Civil Revision No.7058 of 2008 (O&M) 3
interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction is
called for. The Rent Controller, being not a civil Court, was well within
its right to rely upon the contents of the compromise deed Ex.P1,
which is a part of the judicial record of the earlier eviction petition and
to hold that there exists relationship of landlords and tenant between
the parties or that the tenant is liable to pay rent at the rate of
Rs.25000/- per month from June 2001 onwards.
The observations made by the Rent Controller or the
Appellate Authority under the Rent Act, however, would not binding
upon the civil Court, said to be seized with the challenge to the
compromise deed Ex.P1 on the grounds like fraud etc. Suffice it to
say that the civil Court shall consider the issues uninfluenced of the
observations made by the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority
in the impugned orders.
With these observations, this petition is dismissed.
(Surya Kant)
Judge
17.8.2009
AS