Dismissed

Narinder Kumar v. Saran Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Oct 2009CR/6102/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed revision petitions against provisional rent orders. It held that without evidence, the Controller cannot be interfered with at this stage, preserving the petitioner's right to lead proof later for adjustments.

What did the court decide?

The petitions were dismissed; the provisional rent order stands until evidence is led to prove a lower rate or prior payment.

Narinder Kumar Vs Saran Singh and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

CR No.6101 of 2009

¶3

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

¶5

CR No.6101 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 23.10.2009

¶6

¶7

Ravinder Kumar . . . . Petitioner

¶8

VS.

¶9

Saran Singh and others . . . . Respondents

¶10

¶11

CR No.6102 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 23.10.2009

¶12

¶13

Narender Kumar . . . . Petitioner VS. Saran Singh and others . . . . Respondents

¶14

¶15

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶16

¶17

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶18

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶19

¶20

Present: Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate for the petitioner

¶21

¶22

SURYA KANT J.(ORAL)

¶23

(1). This order shall dispose of Civil Revision No.6101 & 6102 of 2009 as both the petitions are directed against the orders dated 08.09.2009 passed by the Rent Controller, Pathankot assessing the provisional rent at the rate of Rs.850/- each per month in respect of two shops let out to the petitioners and further directing the petitioner-tenants to tender the arrears of rent w.e.f. January, 2005 along with interest @ 6% per annum and costs.

¶24

(2). Petitioner’s grievances are two-fold. Firstly, it is urged that the rate of rent is Rs.600/- per month and, secondly, the rent has been allegedly paid upto October, 2008.

¶25

¶26

CR No.6101 of 2009

¶27

(3). Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners at some length, I do not find any merit in the revision petitions.

¶28

(4).

¶29

The rate of rent has been assessed by the Rent Controller on provisional basis and it will be open to the petitioners to prove that the rent is only Rs.600/- per month. Similarly, in the absence of any rent receipts etc. the petitioner will have to lead some cogent evidence to show that the rent upto October 2008 has already been paid. Suffice it to say that, it is only after the evidence is led that the Rent Controller can arrive at a definite conclusion. If it is found that the petitioners have been made to pay excess or double rent for the same period, the petitioners shall be entitled to adjustment of such excess rent against the future rent or its refund.

¶30

(5). No interference with the impugned orders dated 08.09.2009 passed by the Rent Controller, at this stage, is called for.

¶31

(6). Disposed of.

¶32

(7). Dasti.

¶33

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE

¶34

23.10.2009 vishal shonkar

Narinder Kumar v. Saran Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narinder Kumar v. Saran Singh and Ors.

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

Sushma Vs Thakur Dass

Jaswant Rai Jain Vs Subash Chander etc.

Anil Vohra Vs Manjit Singh and Anr.

Devki Rani & Ors. Vs Nirmal Singh

Ravinder Kumar Vs Saran Singh and Ors.

Balwinder Singh and Anr. Vs Jeet Kaur and Ors.