Remanded

Mohd. Salimudin and Anr. v. Somi Devi and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Dec 2008CR/2561/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an eviction order passed for non-deposit of provisional rent, directing parties to engage a single Rent Controller to decide separate petitions simultaneously. An interim rent arrangement of Rs.5,000 p.m. was fixed pending evidence.

What did the court decide?

Set aside eviction order for non-deposit of rent; fixed interim rent of Rs.5,000 p.m.; tenant to deposit Rs.1,50,000/- within one month.

Mohd. Salimudin and Anr. Vs Somi Devi and Anr. — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

CR No.2561 of 2008 [1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

Civil Revision No.2561 of 2008

¶4

Date of Decision: 15 - 12 - 2008

¶5

Mohd Salimudin and another

¶6

....Petitioners

¶7

¶8

Smt.Somi Devi and another

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶11

*******

¶12

Present: Mrs.Naveen Malik, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr.Vikas Sagar, Advocate for the respondents.

¶14

¶15

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA (ORAL)

¶16

Prem Singh has got two children, son Jasbir Singh and daughter Somi Devi. Prem Singh as attorney of both Jasbir Singh and Somi Devi had instituted two eviction petitions against the same tenants for separate portions. The present case is one which was instituted against the tenants on behalf of Somi Devi.

¶17

Mrs.Naveen Malik appearing for the petitioners state that in eviction petition filed on behalf of Jasbir Singh, rent claimed is Rs.4,800/p.m. whereas in eviction petition filed on behalf of Somi Devi rent claimed is Rs.7,000/- p.m.. She further states that in fact tenancy was one. This fact is seriously disputed by Mr.Vikas Sagar, counsel for the respondents. He

¶18

CR No.2561 of 2008 [2]

¶19

state that three rooms on the back of shop constitute one tenancy and qua that Jasbir Singh is landlord, whereas Somi Devi is landlord qua the shop which is in front of three rooms.

¶20

Parties are not in dispute that two separate rent petitions have been filed. Grievance of the petitioners in the present case is that two Courts below have ordered eviction of the petitioners from the shop under tenancy of Somi Devi. Provisional rent of the shop has been assessed Rs.7,000/- p.m., whereas provisional rent for three rooms on the back of shop has been assessed as Rs.4,800/- p.m. This according to the petitioners is a pressure tactics and there is every likelihood of the Courts determining that there was one tenancy. This submission is being contested by counsel for the respondents.

¶21

Be that as it may, the Court of Rent Controller after the evidence adduced by the parties shall determine the rival submissions. The Rent Controller shall determine whether the entire premises constitute one tenancy or separate tenancy under Jasbir Singh and Somi Devi. In case the Rent Controller comes to conclusion that three rooms and the shop in front thereof constitute different tenancies, he shall also determine the rate of rent on basis of evidence led.

¶22

At this stage, it is ordered that the tenant shall deposit Rs.1,50,000/- within one month from today as arrears more than Rs.2,30,000/- are stated to be due. It is stated that tenant is in arrears of rent since 5.5.2006 at the rate of Rs.7,000/- p.m.. Both the rent petitions shall be decided by one Rent Controller separately but simultaneously. In view of this observation, the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority for not depositing the provisional rent is set aside.

¶23

CR No.2561 of 2008 [3]

¶24

From the month of January, 2009 the rent shall be paid by the petitioners to Somi Devi at the rate of Rs.5,000/- p.m. The provisional rent determined to be paid to Jasbir Singh shall also be paid every month. This is an interim arrangement as parties shall get sufficient fair opportunity to lead their evidence regarding determination of the tenanted premises and the rate of rent. In case Rs.1,50,000/- is not deposited within the stipulated period, this order shall cease to operate.

¶25

Revision petition stands disposed off.

¶26

( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) December 15, 2008. JUDGE

¶27

Mohd. Salimudin and Anr. v. Somi Devi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Salimudin and Anr. v. Somi Devi and Anr.

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

Jitender Kumar Vs Bagga Surgical Indus

Varinder Bedi and Ors. Vs Satwant Kaur and Anr.

Vijay Kumar and Anr. Vs Panna Lal

Ajay Kumar Bhandari Vs Sanjay Gupta

Prem Chand and Anr. Vs Surinder Kumar and Ors.

Sohan Lal Vs Parkash Kaur and Ors.