Civil Revision No. 4336 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4336 of 2011 Date of decision 20.7.2011. Amarjit Singh ...... Petitioner . versus Harpret Singh ...... Respondent. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C.PURI Present : Shri Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. K.C.PURI . J. Challenge in this revision is the order dated 20.4.2011 passed by Rent Controller, Amloh vide which the provisional rate of rent has been assessed as Rs.7000/- per month. Harpreet Singh filed petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short – the Act) in respect of shop situated at Mandi Gobindgarh with the allegation that Amrik Kaur mother of landlord was owner of the land as mentioned in the heading of the petition. In the oral family settlement about three years back, the shop Civil Revision No. 4336 of 2011 2 mentioned in the heading of the petition fell in the share of landlord Harpreet Singh whereas the adjacent shop towards west fell to the share of Satinder Singh apart from residential rooms, which also fell to the share of the petitioner and Satinder Singh respectively. The shop mentioned in the head note of the petition was let out by the petitioner to respondent Amarjeet Singh, now revisionist, at the rate of Rs.7000/- per month besides payment of electricity and water charges vide rent note dated 1.10.2006. the respondent has failed to pay the rent w.e.f. 1.9.2008. The other ground of eviction sought was that the respondent has used the shop so rashly and negligently that the user has broken the floor of the shop and has caused cracks in the floor as well as in one wall of the shop. Previously, he used the generator set and instead of using petrol or diesel the respondent uses kerosene oil for running the generator set which is causing huge noise and nuisance in the residential locality. He has also caused loss to the shutters affixed in the shop. Eviction has also been sought on the ground of personal necessity. It is pleaded that in previous petition filed on 28.8.2008 under Section 13 of the Act, the respondent now revisionist was directed to pay the rent @ Rs.7000/-. Against the said order, respondent preferred Civil Revision No.7592 of 2009 which was dismissed vide judgment dated 2.7.2010 by this Court. On put to notice, the petition was resisted and it was pleaded that rate of rent is Rs.2200/- per month and not Rs.7000/- as claimed. The assertion in respect of other grounds of eviction were denied. However, the factum of filing previous petition was not contested. Civil Revision No. 4336 of 2011 3 The learned Rent Controller after hearing both the sides assessed the rate of rent @ Rs.7000/- per month and respondent was directed to pay arrears of rent at that rate from the 1.9.2008 along with costs of Rs.1000/- and 6% per annum interest, the total rent in this manner was assessed as Rs.1,60,040/-. The said order of the Rent Controller dated 20.4.2011 has been challenged in the present revision petition. No doubt the revisionist has claimed the rent @ Rs.2200/-per month but in the present case, there is a rent note between the parties. It is also not disputed during the course of arguments that in previous rent petition, the rate of rent was assessed as Rs.7000/- per month which according to the counsel for the revisionist has been paid. So, in these circumstances, the learned Rent Controller, has rightly assessed the rent @ 7000/- per month. So, in these circumstances, the revision petition is without any merit and the same is dismissed. 7. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE July 20, 2011 sv