Civil Revision No. 3373 of 2012 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3373 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision : May 29, 2012 Sukka ....Petitioner versus Smt. Neeraj Gupta ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Ms. Sangita Dhanda, Advocate, for the petitioner L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) CM No. 14489.CII of 2012 Allowed as prayed for. CR No. 3373 of 2012 Tenant Sukka has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 25.4.2012 passed by learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh. Respondent – landlady has filed ejectment petition under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short, the Civil Revision No. 3373 of 2012 (O&M) -2- Act) against the petitioner – tenant seeking his eviction from demised property comprised of one room near stairs with common use of latrine and bath room on top floor (Barsati portion) of House No. 1524, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh alleging that rate of rent is ` 3500/- per month and the tenant had not paid rent since 16.4.2008 onwards. The tenant alleged the rate of rent to be ` 700/- per month only and also pleaded that he had already paid rent for the disputed period. Learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh vide order dated 17.5.2011, Annexure P/3 assessed provisional rent @ ` 700/- per month (as pleaded by the tenant) and consequently assessed arrears of rent since April, 2008 till May, 2011 (as pleaded by the landlady). Landlady successfully challenged the said order of the Rent Controller by filing appeal before the Appellate Authority. Learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh vide impugned judgment dated 25.4.2012 held the provisional rent to be ` 3500/- per month. The said judgment is under challenge by the tenant in this revision petition. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent was not even landlady till 11.5.2010 when she purchased 20% share in the aforesaid house and therefore, she is not entitled to claim rent for the period prior to it. The contention cannot be accepted because learned Rent Controller vide order Annexure P/3 assessed the provisional arrears of rent since April, Civil Revision No. 3373 of 2012 (O&M) -3- 2008 and the said order was not challenged by the tenant. Even otherwise the respondent landlady had purchased 50% share in the house in the year 2005, 30% share vide sale deed dated 24.10.2007 and remaining 20% share vide sale deed dated 11.5.2010. Thus, even prior to the disputed period of the arrears of rent, respondent was owner of 80% share of the house. Counsel for the petitioner also contended that the demised property is a small room on top floor of the house with common bath room and latrine and could not have fetched rent at the rate of ` 3500/- in March, 2008 when the petitioner was inducted as tenant. The contention cannot be accepted. The landlady has produced rent receipt for one month depicting payment of rent by the petitioner at the rate of ` 3500/- per month. Counsel for the petitioner – tenant contended that the signatures of tenant had been obtained on blank paper. However, at this stage, this plea cannot be accepted. Once signatures of tenant on the said receipt are admitted, prima facie it can be said that rate of rent is ` 3500/- per month. Even otherwise a room with common bath room and latrine would not have been available in Chandigarh at ` 700/- per month rent only even in March, 2008. For the reasons aforesaid, prima facie Appellate Authority has rightly assessed the provisional rate of rent at ` 3500/- per month. Impugned judgment of Appellate Authority in this regard does not suffer from any perversity, illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence Civil Revision No. 3373 of 2012 (O&M) -4- under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is devoid of merit and is, therefore, dismissed in limine. However, it is expressly made clear that nothing observed in this order or in the impugned order of the Appellate Authority shall have any bearing at the time of final adjudication of rate of rent after the parties led their evidence. ( L.N. Mittal ) May 29, 2012 Judge 'dalbir'