Subhash Chander and Another Vs. Gagan Mehta - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1124635
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnFeb-04-2014
AppellantSubhash Chander and Another
RespondentGagan Mehta
Excerpt:
civil revision no.1734 of 2013 1 in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh 243 civil revision no.1734 of 2013 date of decision: 4.2. 2014 subhash chander and another ......petitioners versus gagan mehta .......respondent coram: hon'ble mrs.justice sabina present: mr.p.k.mutneja, advocate for the petitioners.none for the respondent. **** sabina, j. this petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging order dated 29.1.2013 (annexure p-1).whereby, the provisional rent was assessed by the rent controller. learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that so far as the ground floor of the premises in question was concerned, the same was let out by the petitioners to the respondent vide lease deed dated 7.8.2003 (annexure p-2) at a monthly rent of ` 9,000/-. as per the said deed, tenant was required to pay increase of 15% rent after three years in the form of usage charges. the rent controller, while determining the provisional rent, had failed to consider the said condition of the lease deed. learned counsel has further submitted that the lease deed dated 7.8.2003 (annexure p-2) was placed on record before the rent controller. none has appeared on behalf of the respondent. devi anita in the present case, petitioners have sought ejectment of 2014.02.06 16:07 i am approving this document chandigarh civil revision no.1734 of 2013 2 the respondent on the ground that the lease deed had expired and on the ground of personal necessity. a perusal of the lease deed annenxure p-2 reveals that initially rate of rent was fixed at ` 9,000/- per month. the said lease deed is dated 7.8.2003. it is also incorporated in the said deal that the lessee will pay increase @ 15% rent after three years to the lessor in the form of usage charges. the said condition had, however, not been taken in consideration by the rent controller, while determining the provisional rent of the ground floor. learned counsel for the petitioners has further pointed out during the cours.of arguments that in a civil suit filed by the petitioners against the respondent seeking possession of the shop in question, respondent had tendered rent at the enhanced rate in terms of annexure p-2. in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be just and expedient to set aside the impugned order and direct the rent controller to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after considering the documents placed on record by the petitioners.accordingly, this petition is allowed. impugned order dated 29.1.2013 (annexure p-1) is set aside. the rent controller is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. (sabina) judge february 04, 2014 anita devi anita 2014.02.06 16:07 i am approving this document chandigarh
Judgment:

Civil Revision No.1734 of 2013 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh 243 Civil Revision No.1734 of 2013 Date of decision: 4.2.

2014 Subhash Chander and another ......petitioners Versus Gagan Mehta .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.P.K.Mutneja, Advocate for the petitioneRs.None for the respondent.

**** SABINA, J.

This petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging order dated 29.1.2013 (Annexure P-1).whereby, the provisional rent was assessed by the Rent Controller.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that so far as the ground floor of the premises in question was concerned, the same was let out by the petitioners to the respondent vide lease deed dated 7.8.2003 (Annexure P-2) at a monthly rent of ` 9,000/-.

As per the said deed, tenant was required to pay increase of 15% rent after three years in the form of usage charges.

The Rent Controller, while determining the provisional rent, had failed to consider the said condition of the lease deed.

Learned counsel has further submitted that the lease deed dated 7.8.2003 (Annexure P-2) was placed on record before the Rent Controller.

None has appeared on behalf of the respondent.

Devi Anita In the present case, petitioners have sought ejectment of 2014.02.06 16:07 I am approving this document Chandigarh Civil Revision No.1734 of 2013 2 the respondent on the ground that the lease deed had expired and on the ground of personal necessity.

A perusal of the lease deed Annenxure P-2 reveals that initially rate of rent was fixed at ` 9,000/- per month.

The said lease deed is dated 7.8.2003.

It is also incorporated in the said deal that the lessee will pay increase @ 15% rent after three years to the lessor in the form of usage charges.

The said condition had, however, not been taken in consideration by the Rent Controller, while determining the provisional rent of the ground floor.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further pointed out during the couRs.of arguments that in a civil suit filed by the petitioners against the respondent seeking possession of the shop in question, respondent had tendered rent at the enhanced rate in terms of Annexure P-2.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be just and expedient to set aside the impugned order and direct the Rent Controller to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after considering the documents placed on record by the petitioneRs.Accordingly, this petition is allowed.

Impugned order dated 29.1.2013 (Annexure P-1) is set aside.

The Rent Controller is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

(SABINA) JUDGE February 04, 2014 anita Devi Anita 2014.02.06 16:07 I am approving this document Chandigarh