Dismissed

Sonia Bidlana v. Tapan Giri

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Nov 2014CR/7494/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a revision petition challenging a Rent Controller's order assessing provisional rent. The Court held that the Controller acted within jurisdiction as the landlord had specified the rent rate earlier, noting that material disputes could be pursued in separate proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed; the order directing payment of provisional rent was upheld.

Sonia Bidlana Vs Tapan Giri — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

C.R. No. 7494 of 2014

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.R. No. 7494 of 2014 Date of decision: 05.11.2014

Sonia Bidlana

....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Tapan Giri

...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA

¶11

Present: Mr. Mohit Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral)

¶13

Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 30.09.2014 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh whereby, provisional rent to the tune of 51,000/- for 17 months @3,000/per month has been assessed. Apart from the said arrears, the sum of 2,300/- as interest @ 6% per annum and costs of 500/- have also been assessed totaling to `53,800/-. The assessed amount is to be paid by the tenant by today.

¶14

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petition had been filed only on account of personal necessity and an earlier petition is pending and, therefore, the order directing provisional assessment was not justified. It is further submitted that the premises in question were demolished and FIR was also lodged, for which further separate proceedings have also been filed against the landlord.

¶15

After hearing counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the landlord, in his petition filed on 09.01.2014, has SHIVANI GUPTAspecifically mentioned that the premises were let out @ `3,000/- per month. 2015.03.02 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶16

C.R. No. 7494 of 2014

¶17

¶18

It has been further mentioned that earlier he had filed another petition whereby, the arrears had been claimed from 01.10.2008 to 31.03.2013 and the averments were that thereafter the rent had not been paid from 31.03.2013. The plea of the house being required for personal use and occupation had also been taken.

¶19

In such circumstances, keeping in view the observations of the

¶20

Apex Court in Rakesh Wadhawan and others vs. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and others, 2002 (5) SCC 440, it is obvious that the Rent Controller has acted within his jurisdiction in assessing the provisional rent. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a tenant and is required to pay the rent for the usage of the property. In case she has any claim against the landlord for any wrong doings she is always at liberty to pursue her above said rights in separate proceedings.

¶21

In such circumstances, no fault can be found in the order of the provisional assessment, which has been directed and the present petition being without any merit is accordingly dismissed.

¶22

05.11.2014 (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) shivani JUDGE

¶23

SHIVANI GUPTA 2015.03.02 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Sonia Bidlana v. Tapan Giri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonia Bidlana v. Tapan Giri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakhwinder Singh Bhinder Vs Mukesh Verma and Another

State of Punjab and Ors. Vs Gurcharan Singh

M/S D.K. Alums and Acids Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Tek Chand Bakshi through Its Lr Swaran Bakshi Vs State of Pb. etc.

Jagdish Chander Vs M/S E.C.E. Industries Ltd. (Lamp Divn) Sonepat

Bal Krishan Vs Harjinder Singh Dua