Civil Revision No.3359 of 1990 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3359 of 1990 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.02.2009 Bachan Mal .............. Petitioner Vs. Gian Chand ............Respondent Present: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? -.- K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner and respondent as well. On perusal of records, I find that the impugned order is with reference to grant of sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The Rent Controller has found on consideration of oral and documentary evidence that the landlord has collected more money from the tenant as payable towards property tax and has thus rendered himself guilty of offence under Section 19(3) and contravened the provisions of Section 9(2) of the Act. He has specifically referred to the fact that the landlord has received an amount of Rs.4150/- from the tenant but has paid only Rs.3813.75. This finding is rendered by actual consideration of tax receipts tendered by the landlord in proof of his payment. 2. Section 9(1) of the Act empowers the landlord to collect an increased rent arising out of an increase on account of payment of Civil Revision No.3359 of 1990 (O&M) -2- other taxes. Section 9(2) interdicts a landlord recovering from his tenant an amount of any tax or any portion thereof in respect of any building or rented land occupied by such tenant by any increase in the amount of rent payable or otherwise, as provided under sub-section (1). The tenant had been contending before the Courts below while seeking permission for sanction that the landlord had committed a complete breach by not paying any tax, which was collected from him. The Rent Controller himself found such contention to be not true but found that the landlord had collected Rs.4170/- instead of Rs.3813.75. The entitlement of the landlord to collect the portion of tax is indicated in the rent deed as a particular percentage of the rent and it is possible that while making the percentage, figures are rounded off and there could be a slight discrepancy between the amount actually collected and the amount which is actually remitted. The difference in this case is not even more than Rs.350/-. It is not a case of complete non-payment of amount by the landlord collected from the tenant as property tax. I do not think that there is any attempt of the landlord to collect an amount, for which he was not competent to collect from the tenant. The difference of amount is minimal that does not reckon consideration for grant of sanction to prosecute the landlord before a Criminal Court. 3. The order of the Rent Controller granting such sanction is set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE February 18, 2009 Pankaj*