Civil Revision No. 3397 of 2010 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3397 of 2010 Date of decision : 26.5.2010 Sanjeev Kumar Sharma ....Petitioner Versus Subhash Vir Dhanda etc. ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. J.S.Bagga, Advocate for the petitioner. S. D. ANAND, J. The respondent-landlord had applied for the ejectment of the petitioner-tenant on an averment that the latter was in arrears of rent for the period 1.5.2005 onwards. The averment was that the rent is payable at the rate of Rs.3500/- excluding water and electricity charges. The further averment was that the rent aforementioned, in terms of the agreement, was to be increased at the rate of 5% every year. The petitioner-tenant denied that he is in occupation of the tenanted premises as a tenant under respondent no.2 and also averred that rent upto February, 2007 had already paid up. It was averred that the agreed rate of rent was only Rs.3200/- per month which was not to undergo any upwards enhancement. Civil Revision No. 3397 of 2010 -2- **** The learned Rent Controller negatived the petition by holding that the rent for the tenanted premises was payable at the rate of Rs.3200/- per month; that there was no consensual arrangement for enhancement of the rent and further that the rent had been proved to have been paid. The respondent-landlord filed an appeal against that part of the finding which was adverse to him; while the petitioner-tenant filed a plea for refund of the amount which he had tendered compulsively before the learned Rent Controller in order to avoid eviction. Learned Appellate Authority allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-landlord by holding that the rent for tenanted premises was payable at the rate of Rs.3500/- per month but that there was to be no further enhancement thereof. The respondent- landlord was, thus, held entitled to rent at the rate of Rs.3500/- per month for the period 1.5.2005 to 30.11.2007. The petitioner-tenant was given one month time within which he had to make the deficit payment aforementioned or else face eviction. The appeal filed by the petitioner-tenant was negatived. The petitioner-tenant is in revision against it. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner- tenant argues that the finding by the learned Appellate Authority qua the rate of rent being Rs.3500/- is invalid as it does not take cognizance of contents of Ex.R/2 to Ex. R/7 wherein the rate of rent is recorded to be Rs.3200/- per month. Civil Revision No. 3397 of 2010 -3- **** The plea deserves outright disallowance. The reasons therefor are as under:- Ex.R/2 to Ex.R/7 purport to be the announcements made by the petitioner-tenant and his wife to their employer i.e. Panjab University. The respondent-landlord was not a party thereto. There also is neither an averment nor proof to the effect that Ex.R2 to Ex.R7 had ever been notified to the respondent-landlord. This aspect is to be appreciated in the light of the averment made by none else or other than the petitioner-tenant that the respondent-landlord di not issue any rent receipt. Apart therefrom, the petitioner-tenant had himself conceded that he and his wife, both of whom are in employment of the Panjab University, and are income tax assesses, did not indicate the payment of rent in their income tax returns. Here is, thus, a case in which there is no requirement of announcing the rate of rent to the employer but the petitioner-tenant and his wife did it. The observation made by the learned Rent Controller does not appear to be without justification. (“Above all he admitted that although he and his wife are filing income tax returns but neither he nor his wife is showing the payment of rent in those returns”). On the other hand, an income tax assessee is ordained by law to indicate the house rent allowance received from the employer in the income tax return. In the circumstances of the case, the petitioner has not been able to indicate any justification for interference by this Court in the finding recorded by the learned Appellate Authority. Civil Revision No. 3397 of 2010 -4- **** In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. May 26, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Civil Revision No. 3397 of 2010 -5- ****