Civil Revision No. 6324 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 6324 of 2009 Date of Decision: 13.8.2010 Bhim Sen Bansal and Others …Petitioners Versus Ved Parkash & Sons and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.L. Arora, Advocate for the respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The petitioner/landlords have assailed the order dated 21.5.2009, passed by learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, whereby it was held that the petitioner/landlords are only entitled to receive the rent from the date of execution of the sale deed i.e. 4.12.2006 but not earlier thereto as there was no assignment of the rent by the seller of the property in favour of the petitioner/landlords. To examine the challenge to the impugned order, it will be necessary to recapitulate the brief facts of the case. The petitioners purchased the property in question vide sale deed dated 4.12.2006, registered on 5.12.2006. The petitioners filed an eviction petition against the respondent/tenants claiming rent w.e.f. Civil Revision No. 6324 of 2009 2 October 1989. To prove their claim, the petitioners relied upon the following recital in the sale deed:- “...The vendees have the full right to receive and recover the arrears of rent from the above tenants from the date of execution of this sale deed”. This recital was to be interpreted by the Rent Controller while assessing the provisional rent. The Rent Controller prima facie came to a conclusion that since there was no specific assignment, the above said recital will vest no right in the landlords to claim rent prior to the execution of the sale deed. This Court is of the view that while assessing the provisional rent, the Rent Controller, on the bass of the pleadings, formulated a prima facie view. This recital is required to be explained by the parties by leading evidence. The landlord/petitioners will be well within their rights to examine the seller to say that the above said recital meant that the rent due before the execution of sale deed is to be paid to the landlords. Equally, the tenant can also say that the earlier proceedings are pending between the previous landlords and the tenant and if that is so the previous landlords has an actionable claim and they can only demand the rent and not the present petitioners, as it will amount to the civil liability. For saying so, the tenant will have to prove the pendency of previous litigation by examining the witnesses. The pleadings made in the earlier litigation, if so pending, will be necessary for the consideration of the Rent Controller. Hence, the impugned order dated 21.5.2009 is modified and the question as to whether the petitioner/landlords shall be entitled to the arrears of rent, before the execution of sale deed, shall remain open to Civil Revision No. 6324 of 2009 3 be decided, after the parties lead their evidence to this effect. The Rent Controller shall formulate a specific issue to adjudicate the divergent pleadings made by the parties. The revision petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge August 13, 2010 “DK”