CR No.2113 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2113 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 31.7.2009 Raj Kapoor @ Jolly ..Petitioner Vs. Lt.Col.Mohinder Singh (Retd.) ..Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.A.K.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sandeep Jain, Advocate, for the respondent. Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) This revision is directed against the order dated 15.1.2008 passed by the learned Rent Controller, U.T., Chandigarh fixing the provisional rent payable by the tenant petitioner. The respondent/landlord filed a petition under section 13 of the East Punjab (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short the Act) for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of non-payment of rent and also on ground of personal necessity. In the petition the respondent/landlord claimed the rent from CR No.2113 of 2008 2 September, 2006 to December 2006 at the rate of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) per month and further from 1.1.2007 till date at the rate of Rs.3150/- (Rupees three thousand and fifty only) per month. The petitioner tenant contested the claim by asserting the rate of rent to be Rs.800/- (Rupees eight hundred only) per month excluding water and electricity charges. The stand was also taken that the rent up to July, 2007 stood paid and that thereafter it was the respondent/landlord himself who had refused to accept the rent though offered. In support of his case the respondent/landlord placed reliance on the photo copy of income tax return showing a receipt of rent for the assessment year 2007-08 wherein he had shown to have received rent at the rate of Rs.3200/- (Rupees three thousand and two hundred only) per month w.e.f. 1.4.2006 to 31.8.2006. As against this, the petitioner placed reliance on the photo copies of cheque showing the payment of rent at the rate of Rs.800/- (Rupees eight hundred only) per month. He also placed reliance on the copy of DDR with regard to the complaint made against the respondent/ landlord. The learned Rent Controller fixed the rate of rent at Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) per month, without giving any reason, whatsoever. The proceedings for assessment of provisional rent are summary in nature, but the learned Rent Controller is still bound to give some reason for accepting version of one party against the other. Reading of the order impugned shows that the learned Rent Controller has not accepted stand of either of tenant or of landlord though both the stands CR No.2113 of 2008 3 were based on documentary evidence. The impugned order, therefore, is on the face of it arbitrary, and therefore, cannot be sustained in law. The learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the judgment of this court in the case of Vijay (Khandani Vaid) Vs. Dharampal 2004 (3) CCC 369, and the judgment of this court in the case of Manish Bhatia Vs. Smt.Kishni Devi & Anr. 2006 (3) CCC 402, wherein this court has been pleased to lay down that provisional rent can be assessed on perusal of the pleadings and such material as may be available on record. No evidence is required to be led in this case, and that revision against the order of assessment is not competent. Judgment in the case of Manish Bhatia Vs. Smt.Kishni Devi & Anr. (supra) does not support the stand of the respondent. Rather this judgment support the view being taken by this court, that in order to assess the provisional rent available material on record is required to be seen and thereafter an order is to be passed. As observed the learned Rent Controller neither relied on the documents placed on record by the petitioner nor the documents placed on record by respondent. The learned Rent Controller assessed provisional rent at the rate of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only). Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai & Ors. AIR 2003 SC 3044 has been pleased to lay down that scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India is much wider in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction over its subordinate courts and Tribunal. The order which is arbitrary or, prima facie not sustainable can be CR No.2113 of 2008 4 interferred with by this court. It may be noticed that the revisional jurisdiction under section 15 of the Rent Act is wider than the revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore, there cannot be absolute bar to exercise revisional jurisdiction. The order fixing provisional rent normally is not to be interferred with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, but patent illegality and arbitrary orders can always be corrected by this court in exercise of jurisdiction vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned Rent Controller to determine the provisional rent after taking into consideration the pleadings and the documents placed on record by the respective parties. 31.07. 2009 (Vinod K.Sharma) rp Judge