Dismissed

Jim Health Club & Anr. v. M/S Maharaja Complex & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Oct 2009CR/5999/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner-tenant against the Rent Controller's order assessing provisional rent. The Court held there was no ground to interfere, allowing the petitioners the option to tender arrears or adjust amounts already paid at their own risk.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was disposed of without interfering with the impugned order of the Rent Controller.

Jim Health Club & Anr. Vs M/S Maharaja Complex… — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Revision No.5999 of 2009 (O&M)

¶3

Date of Decision : 20.10.2009

¶4

Jim Health Club and another

¶5

.....Petitioners

¶6

versus

¶7

M/s Maharaja Complex and another .....Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

¶9

Present : Mr.V.K.Bali, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶10

-.-

¶11

Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶16

The petitioner-tenant is aggrieved at the order dated 2.9.2009, whereby the Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur has assessed the provisional rent @ Rs.15,000/- per month w.e.f. 18.12.2005 till the date of filing of the eviction petition, i.e., 13.2.2008, total comes to Rs.4,14,438/-. The petitioner's grievance is that for a substantial part of the period in dispute, the rent has already been paid by the petitioners to the respondent-landlord by cheques.

¶17

After hearing counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. Suffice it to say that if the petitioners tender the entire arrears of rent as assessed by the Rent

¶18

C.R. No.5999 of 2009 (O&M) 2

¶19

Controller and later on succeed in proving that a part of the rent has already been paid to the landlord, the petitioners would undoubtedly be entitled to refund of such excess payment and/or its adjustment against future rent. Similarly, there is no compulsion to the petitioners to tender the assessed arrears of rent, if they are confident regarding payment of rent to the landlord for a substantial part of the period in dispute and nothing precludes them to deduct the amount to the extent it has already been paid and thereafter, they may tender the balance amount, if so desire. This, however, shall be done by the petitioners at their own risk and peril.

¶20

The revision petition stands disposed of.

¶21

Dasti.

¶22

20-10-2009 Mohinder

¶23

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE

Jim Health Club & Anr. v. M/S Maharaja Complex & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jim Health Club & Anr. v. M/S Maharaja Complex & 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

Madan Mohan Manchanda Vs Raj Dularia

Gurmail Singh and Anr. Vs Director, Rural Dev. & Panchayats Pb. and Ors.

Rajinder Kumar Vs Kaushalya Devi

K K Prabhakaran Vs M/S Hero Exports and Ors.

Ram Swarup Vs Ram Swarup and Others

Sultan and Ors. Vs Murti Shri Surya Narain Ji Maharaj and Ors.