Dismissed

Surinder Singh v. Radhey Shyam

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Sept 2006CR/2128/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenging a Rent Controller's order assessing rent at Rs. 1,000 per month was dismissed. The Court found no illegality or material irregularity and held that the assessment was subject to final determination by the Rent Controller.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition is dismissed and the petitioner/tenant is directed to deposit/tender rent before the Rent Controller.

Surinder Singh Vs Radhey Shyam — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2006)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶2

Civil Revision No. 2128 of 2006

¶3

Date of decision: 1.9.2006

Surinder Singh

--- Petitioner

Versus

Radhey Shyam

--- Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL

¶10

PRESENT: Mr. N.S. Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Arun Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

In this revision petition filed by the tenant the challenge is to the order dated 1.4.2006 whereby the Rent Controller has assessed rent of the premises in dispute at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month. The Rent Controller adjourned the ejectment petition to 20.4.2006 for making payment of rent at the aforesaid rate from 1.7.2003 along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and costs of Rs. 500/- as assessed by it.

¶14

The Rent Controller while assessing the rent, provisionally took into consideration an agreement dated 5.4.2003 produced by the landlord allegedly executed by the petitioner-tenant whereby the premises were let out to him for two years i.e. upto 4.4.2005, at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per month. The genuineness of the said agreement was, however, disputed by the tenant. It was on these premises that the Rent Controller provisionally assessed the rent of the premises in dispute at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month.

¶15

After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not pin-point anything from the record or

¶16

¶17

C.R. No. 2128 of 2006

¶18

otherwise, that the rent of the premises in question could not have been assessed at the above rate by the Rent Controller. Assessment of rent, which in the present case, has been made at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month will in any case be subject to final determination by the Rent Controller. No ground to interfere with the impugned order is, therefore, made out. The petitionertenant may deposit/tender the rent payable upto 31.8.2006 before the Rent Controller on or before 15.9.2006. The revision petition is consequently dismissed.

¶19

September 1, 2006 MALIK

¶20

( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE

Surinder Singh v. Radhey Shyam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surinder Singh v. Radhey Shyam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuldip Singh Vs Harjoginder Singh

Haryana State Electricity Board Vs Sunil Kumar

Bawa Singh Vs Lachhman Singh

Manjit Kaur Ranu and Anr. Vs Kulwant Kaur and Ors.

Piara Singh Vs Malhi Commission Agents

Piara Singh Vs Zimidara Commission Agents