Revision by a landlord dismissed. The single-bench judge held that the rent note's 5% increase was strictly valid only from 01.01.2001, not annually, rendering the lower courts' orders correct.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.3337 of 2009 Date of decision:14.01.2011.
Babu Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
Ravinder Verma ...Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Ms. Poonam R. Mehta, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Gulam Nabi Malik, Advocate, for the respondent. *****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL)
This revision petition is filed by the petitioner/landlord against the orders of the Courts below by which his application for ejectment of the respondent/tenant from the demised premises, has been dismissed.
The only bone of contention is the interpretation of the rent note in which it is mentioned that the rent would be increased @ 5% w.e.f. 01.01.2001.. The question is as to “whether that increase of 5% in the rent would be every year or it is only w.e.f. 01.01.2001?” Admittedly, the rent note does not say that the rent would be increased @ 5% every year, rather it shows that the rent would be increased @ 5% w.e.f. 01.01.2001.
In view thereof, I do not find any error in the orders passed by the Courts below and as such, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of merits.
No costs.
(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE
January 14, 2011 vinod*
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the 5% rent increase stipulated in the rent note was effective only from 01.01.2001 or recurring every year.
Babu Singh
Ravinder Verma
Rakesh Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
