High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging an interim order of provisional rent assessment. The court held that fair opportunity for evidence exists and refused interference under Article 227.
Revision petition disposed off; order of Rent Controller found not to warrant interference.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Civil Revision No. 7 of 2008
1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.
Civil Revision No. 7 of 2008
Date of Decision: 2.12.2008
Baldev Raj
…Petitioner
Versus
Ashwan Kesar
... Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.
Present: Mr. Ranjit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)
The present revision petition has been filed against the order passed by learned Rent Controller, Tarn Taran, whereby he provisionally assessed the rent as Rs.250/- per month.
The case of the petitioner is that in a judgment passed by learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, in an appeal which has arisen against the judgment and decree in a civil suit, contention of the landlord has been noticed that rent is Rs.1,100/- per month. In that suit, there was an issue regarding determination of the rent. In that suit, the claim of tenant that rent is Rs.250/- was not accepted.
Be that as it may, the order of provisional assessment is interim in nature. The parties shall get fair opportunity to adduce evidence regarding determination of the rent. Copy of the order passed
Civil Revision No. 7 of 2008
2
in appeal can also be proved and the same will be taken into consideration by learned Rent Controller while determining the rent.
It was held in Rakesh Wadhawan v. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation 2002(1) Rent Control Reporter 514 that in case there is any deficiency in the rent tendered, the same can be made good later or if any excess has been paid, the same can be adjusted.
Therefore, while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, this Court find that no interference is warranted.
Hence, the present revision petition is disposed off.
(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge
December 2, 2008
“ DK ”
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the interim order of provisional rent assessment under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rakesh Wadhawan v. M/s Jagdamba Industrial CorporationReferred¶20
Rakesh Wadhawan v. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation 2002(1) Rent Control Reporter 514
Baldev Raj
Ashwan Kesar
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
