Dismissed¶¶27

Ramesh Kumar and Anr. v. Kaushal Rani Alias Kaushalya Devi

Rent Control – Fixation of rent

Punjab & Haryana HC1 May 2025CR/1980/2021

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh; CR-1980-2021 (O&M); decided 01.05.2025 by Justice Pankaj Jain (oral). Tenant's civil revision against fixation of rent @ Rs.3,000/- per month by Rent Controller and Appellate Authority, Fazilka dismissed. Keywords: rent note Exhibit A-1 dated 09.09.2004; Section 91 Indian Evidence Act; ocular evidence vs rent note; adjoining shop rent note 25.06.2014 Rs.6,000/-; vicinity rate Rs.3,000/-; cheques Exhibits R-6 to R-11 Rs.1,500/- to landlord's husband; onus on tenant; condonation of delay 347 days; Section 5 Limitation Act; CM-8834-CII-2021.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed for want of merits; delay of 347 days in filing the petition condoned (CM-8834-CII-2021 allowed); pending miscellaneous applications disposed of. ¶¶27

Ramesh Kumar and Anr. Vs Kaushal Rani Alias Kaushalya Devi — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revision petition dismissed for want of merits; delay of 347 days in filing the petition condoned (CM-8834-CII-2021 allowed); pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

¶¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the rate of rent payable by the tenant qua the shop in question was Rs.3,000/- per month as per the rent note dated 09.09.2004 (Exhibit A-1), or Rs.1,500/- as contended by the tenant. +2 more

¶¶17

Court's answer

The rent note with respect to the adjoining shop also shows that the rate of rent in the vicinity was Rs.3000/- per month.

¶¶22

Ratio / Principle

The courts below rightly relied upon Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act to hold that in the presence of the rent note, admittedly executed between the parties, the ocular evidence adduced by the tenant-petitioner cannot be looked into.

¶¶21

Key takeaways

Non-examination of the landlady's husband cannot be held against her; it was the tenant who relied upon the cheques drawn in favour of the husband of the landlady, and the onus was upon the tenant to prove the nature of such transactions.ratio¶¶25
There was no occasion for the tenant to pay rent to the husband of the landlady when the rent note was not executed in favour of the tenant by the husband, but by the landlady.ratio¶¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rent Control – Fixation of rent – Tenant's revision against concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, Fazilka fixing rent @ Rs.3,000/- per month dismissed. Rate proved by rent note dated 09.09.2004 (Exhibit A-1); per Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, the tenant's ocular evidence could not be looked into in the face of the admittedly executed rent note. Rent note for the adjoining shop (dated 25.06.2014, Rs.6,000/-) showed the vicinity rate to be Rs.3,000/- per month. Cheques (Exhibits R-6 to R-11) allegedly towards Rs.1,500/- rent paid to the landlady's husband: onus to prove their nature lay on the tenant; non-examination of the husband could not be held against the landlady, there being no occasion to pay rent to the husband when the rent note was executed by the landlady herself. Delay of 347 days in filing the revision condoned (CM-8834-CII-2021, Section 5, Limitation Act).

¶1

¶2

CR-1980-2021 ( O &M)

¶3

[279] IN THE HIGH COURT OF P UNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIG A RH

¶4

CR-1980 - 2021 (O&M) Date of D ecision : 01.05.2025

¶5

Ramesh K umar and another …Petitioners

¶6

versus

¶7

Kaushal R ani alias Kaushalya Devi ….Respondent

¶8

Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

¶9

Present: Mr. Aakash Singla, Advocat e for the petitioners.

¶10

¶11

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

¶12

CM-883 4 -CII-2021

¶13

[1] This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limita t ion Act for c o ndonation of delay of 347 days in filing the present petition.

¶14

[2] For the reasons recorded in the application, this Cour t is satisfied t hat the petitioners have made s ufficient cause for condonatio n of delay of 3 47 days in filing of the petition.

¶15

[3] Application stands allowed and delay of 347 days in filin g of the petiti o n is condoned.

¶16

CR-1980-2021 (O&M)

¶17

[4] Tenant(s) is in revision, ag g rieved of judgments passed by the Rent Co n troller, Fazilka as well as t he Appellate Authority, Fazi l ka, whereby r ate of rent payable by the tena n t has been assessed @ Rs.3,000/-. In order t o prove rate of rent, landlord p r oduced rent note dated 09.09.2 0 04 RAJNEESH SHARMA (Exhibit A -1). The same is not denied, h owever, the plea of the tenant w as 2025.05.06 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

¶19

CR-1980-2021 ( O &M)

¶20

that even though the rent note mentioned the rate of rent @ Rs.3000/- b u t in fact, the actual rate was fixed @ Rs.15 0 0/-. In order to prove the sa m e, tenant re l ies upon admission made by the landlady qua adjoining s h op, which w a s rent out in the year 2014 vide rent note dated 25.06.2 0 14. Though, t he rent note mentioned rate of r ent as Rs.6000/- per month but the landlady i s stated to have admitted that s he was receiving rent of Rs.30 0 0/per mont h . Apart from the aforesaid evi d ence with respect to the adjoi n ing shop, M r . Singla, counsel for the petitioners submits that mone t ary transacti o ns with respect to payment of R s.1500/- were produced on re c ord as Exhibit R-6 to Exhibit R-11, whereb y rent of Rs.1500/- was paid by the tenant to the husband of the landlord. He submits that the landlady w as specifically confronted with the aforesai d cheques. She however denied t hat the same was payment of rent. At the s ame time, she categorically st a ted that it is h er husband, who can explain th e same. Mr. Singla, counsel for the petitione r s submits that it was for the la n dlady to examine her husband a nd to show a s to for what purpose the afores a id transactions were affected.

¶21

[5] I have heard counsel for the petitioners and have carefully g o ne through r e cords of the case. [6] In the considered opinion o f this Court, the Courts below have rightly re l ied upon Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act to hold that in the presence of the rent note, which was admittedly executed between the parties, t h e ocular evidence adduced b y the tenant-petitioner cannot be looked in t o.

¶22

[7] In the considered opinion o f this Court, the rent note w ith respect t o adjoining shop also shows tha t the rate of rent in the vicinity w as RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.05.06 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and Rs.3000/ - per month. The plea with res p ect to non-examination of husb a nd integrity of this document

¶23

¶24

CR-1980-2021 ( O &M)

¶25

of the la n dlady also cannot be held agai n st her. It is the tenant, who re l ied upon the c heques drawn in favour of the h usband of the landlady. Onus w as upon the tenant to prove the nature of s u ch transactions. Apparently, t h ere was no o c casion for tenant to pay rent to husband of landlady when the r ent note was not executed in favour of t h e tenant by the husband, but by landlady. In view thereof, this Court fin d s that both the authorities under the Rent Act have rightly held that the rate o f rent qua the shop, in question, w as Rs.3000/ - per month relying upon the ren t note.