IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB
AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
C.R. No. 6447 of 2008.
Date of Decision: 6th July, 2009.
Canara Bank Petitioner
through
Mr. A.P.Jagga, Advocate with
Mr. Alok Jagga, Advocate.
Versus
Smt. Barinder Kaur & Anr. Respondents
through
Mr. B.R.Mahajan, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL)
The petitioner-tenant is a nationalized Bank and is
aggrieved at the order dated 18.10.2008 passed by the Rent
Controller, Amritsar whereby it has been directed to pay the
provisional rent @ Rs.45/- per square feet w.e.f. 8.7.2006, i.e., the
date of expiry of the extended lease period.
There is hardly any dispute that the subject premises was
rented out to the petitioner Bank w.e.f. 8.7.1991 and a lease deed to
this effect was executed on 20.8.1992. It was agreed that the
petitioner shall pay monthly rent @ Rs.17,209/- calculated @ Rs.3.5
per sq. feet of the carpet area. The lease period was ten years
commencing from 8.7.1991 and could be further extended for a
period of five years on the same terms and conditions. The petitioner
Bank also agreed to increase 15% rent after every block of five
years.
The respondent – landlords have now filed an eviction
petition on the ground of non-payment of rent. While the respondent
– landlords have averred that after the expiry of the extended period
of lease w.e.f. 8.7.2006, the respondent Bank is liable to pay rent at
the market rate the petitioner Bank has taken the plea that it is liable
to pay the rent as per the agreed terms and conditions only.
Suffice it to say that the aforementioned issue as to
whether or not the petitioner is liable to pay the market rent, is yet to
be gone into by the Rent Controller. Meanwhile, on an application
moved by the respondent – landlords, the Rent Controller has
determined the provisional rent @ Rs.45/- per sq. feet after observing
that the prevalent market rent in the locality is between 45/- to
Rs.82/- per square feet.
Aggrieved at the impugned order, the petitioner has
approached this Court.
Relying upon the observations made by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan v M/s Jagdamba Industrial
Corporation, 2002[2] RLR, 36, learned counsel for the petitioner
urges that there was no occasion for the Rent Controller to determine
any provisional rent as there was no dispute qua the rate of rent.
According to him, there is an agreed rate of rent and the arrears of
rent are also liable to be tendered at that rate. Learned counsel
urged that since the petitioner continues as a tenant by virtue of the
lease deed, the liability to pay the rent would also arise therefrom.
Lastly, it is urged that the excess rent, if paid, would be difficult to be
recovered.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties for some
time, I do not find any merit in this revision petition. The question as
to whether or not the petitioner is liable to pay the rent at the market
rate is a question of fact and shall be gone into by the Rent Controller
at an appropriate stage after the evidence is led by the parties.
Suffice it to observe at this stage that there is a serious dispute with
regard to the rate of rent as according to the landlords, there is no
agreed rate of rent between the parties after the expiry of lease-
period. In these circumstances, the Rent Controller has rightly
assessed the provisional rent. The contention that the excess
payment, if any, made to the landlords can not be recovered, is
wholly mis-placed as the same can always be adjusted against the
future rent.
For the reasons aforementioned, I do not find any merit in
this revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
July 06, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE