Harvinder Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1123897
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJan-28-2014
AppellantHarvinder Kumar
RespondentSunil Kumar
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh 247 civil revision no.4572 of 2013 (o&m) date of decision: 28.1.2014 harvinder kumar ......petitioners versus sunil kumar .......respondents coram: hon'ble mrs.justice sabina present: mr.m.s.rattu, advocate for the petitioner. mr.vikram singh, advocate, for the respondent. **** sabina, j. this petition has been filed challenging order dated 20.7.2013, whereby, provisional rent was assessed by the rent controller. learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, therefore, no provisional rent was liable to be assessed by the rent controller. learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner had admitted the execution of rent agreement dated 1.7.2004 between the parties. the said agreement had never been terminated. the rent controller, while assessing the provisional rent, has observed as under:- “in the present case, the petitioner is relying upon the rent agreement dated 1.7.2004 but on the other hand, the devi anita 2014.02.03 12:23 i am approving this document chandigarh civil revision no.4572 of 2013 (o&m) -2- respondent has placed on record the other rent agreement executed regarding the same property between kashmiri lal and the respondent but the respondent has not denied regarding his tenancy and he has not placed on record any receipt regarding payment of rent upto january, 2013. further, the question regarding ownership of the suit property can be decided by leading cogent evidence at later stage. thus, the respondent is directed to pay the arrears of rent in the period 1.4.2010 to 28.2.2013 amounting to ` 3,50,000/- within 15 days from today. now, case is adjourned to 1.8.2013 for payment of rent.”. the reasons given by the rent controller, while assessing the provisional rent, are sound reasons. in the present case, admittedly, agreement dated 1.7.2004 qua tenancy was executed between the parties. case of the petitioner is that on 1.2.2007, another agreement had been executed between the petitioner and kashmiri lal gupta. however, agreement dated 1.7.2004 was never terminated. in these circumstances, learned rent controller had rightly assessed the provisional rent vide the impugned order. no ground for interference by this court is made out. dismissed. (sabina) judge january 28, 2014 devi anita anita 2014.02.03 12:23 i am approving this document chandigarh
Judgment:

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh 247 Civil Revision No.4572 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.1.2014 Harvinder Kumar ......petitioners Versus Sunil Kumar .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.M.S.Rattu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the respondent.

**** SABINA, J.

This petition has been filed challenging order dated 20.7.2013, whereby, provisional rent was assessed by the Rent Controller.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, therefore, no provisional rent was liable to be assessed by the Rent Controller.

Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner had admitted the execution of rent agreement dated 1.7.2004 between the parties.

The said agreement had never been terminated.

The Rent Controller, while assessing the provisional rent, has observed as under:- “In the present case, the petitioner is relying upon the rent agreement dated 1.7.2004 but on the other hand, the Devi Anita 2014.02.03 12:23 I am approving this document Chandigarh Civil Revision No.4572 of 2013 (O&M) -2- respondent has placed on record the other rent agreement executed regarding the same property between Kashmiri Lal and the respondent but the respondent has not denied regarding his tenancy and he has not placed on record any receipt regarding payment of rent upto January, 2013.

Further, the question regarding ownership of the suit property can be decided by leading cogent evidence at later stage.

Thus, the respondent is directed to pay the arrears of rent in the period 1.4.2010 to 28.2.2013 amounting to ` 3,50,000/- within 15 days from today.

Now, case is adjourned to 1.8.2013 for payment of rent.”

.

The reasons given by the Rent Controller, while assessing the provisional rent, are sound reasons.

In the present case, admittedly, agreement dated 1.7.2004 qua tenancy was executed between the parties.

Case of the petitioner is that on 1.2.2007, another agreement had been executed between the petitioner and Kashmiri Lal Gupta.

However, agreement dated 1.7.2004 was never terminated.

In these circumstances, learned Rent Controller had rightly assessed the provisional rent vide the impugned order.

No ground for interference by this Court is made out.

Dismissed.

(SABINA) JUDGE January 28, 2014 Devi Anita anita 2014.02.03 12:23 I am approving this document Chandigarh