Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
  • Mr. Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate,
  • Mr. Ajay Kumar Jain, Advocate,
Judges
  • Mr. Surya Kant, J.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
  • Mr. Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate,
  • Mr. Ajay Kumar Jain, Advocate,
Judges
  • Mr. Surya Kant, J.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This revision petition was filed by the tenant challenging the order dated 2.2.2009 passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana. The impugned order provisionally assessed the rent of the demised premises at Rs. 350 per month and directed the tenant to pay arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 80,636 from January 1991 onwards. The tenant specifically denied the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship with the landlord named in the proceedings.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether a Rent Controller is obliged to provisionally assess rent when the tenant disputes the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship.
  2. The proper procedural course when the tenant denies the landlord-tenant relationship but the landlord claims arrears of rent.
  3. The consequences of denying the landlord-tenant relationship and the legal safeguards to prevent misuse of such denial to avoid rent payment.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Rakesh Wadhawan and others v. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and others, 2003 (2) Civil Court Cases 361 (SC) Where the tenant disputes the landlord-tenant relationship, the Rent Controller is not obliged to provisionally assess rent. The court applied this principle to hold that since the tenant denied the landlord-tenant relationship, the Rent Controller erred in provisionally assessing rent.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court noted that the tenant had specifically denied the landlord-tenant relationship, asserting tenancy under different persons. Relying on the Supreme Court precedent, the Court held that in such circumstances the Rent Controller should not have provisionally assessed the rent. However, the Court emphasized that denial of the relationship does not absolve the tenant from legal consequences if the relationship is ultimately proved. The Court recognized the potential for unscrupulous tenants to misuse such denials to evade rent payment and held that such malpractice must be prevented. Therefore, the Court directed the tenant to file an undertaking that if the landlord-tenant relationship is proved, no further opportunity to tender arrears would be claimed and legal consequences would follow. Alternatively, the tenant could pay the provisionally assessed arrears within two weeks. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Rent Controller to frame a specific issue on the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship, with clear consequences if found in favor of the landlord, including eviction without further opportunity to pay arrears.

Holding and Implications

The revision petition is allowed in the terms stated. The impugned order of provisional rent assessment is set aside. The Rent Controller is directed to determine the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship as a specific issue. If the relationship is affirmed in favor of the landlord, the tenant shall not be granted further opportunity to tender arrears and shall be liable for eviction.

The decision directly affects the parties by ensuring that tenants cannot evade rent payment by denying the landlord-tenant relationship without consequence. No new precedent beyond the application of the cited Supreme Court ruling was established.

Show full summary ...

    M/S Chopra Jewellers Petitioner v. Rajender Pal Gupta

    ORDER

    Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

    This revision petition is directed by the tenant against the order dated 2.2.2009 passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, whereby provisional rent of the demised premises has been assessed @ Rs. 350/- per month and he has been directed to tender the arrears of rent of Rs. 80,636/-from January, 1991 onwards.

    Notice of motion was issued in this petition and pursuant thereto, counsel for the parties have been heard.

    It is not in dispute that the petitioner-tenant has specifically denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

    As ruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan and others v. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and others, 2003 (2) Civil Court Cases 361 (SC), where the tenant has disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant, the Rent Controller is not obliged to assess the provisional rent. Since in the case in hand also, the petitioner-tenant has specifically denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and asserts himself to be a tenant under one Kishore Chand and thereafter under Smt. Shakuntla Devi, daughter in-law of Kishore Chand, there was no occasion for the Rent Controller to pass the impugned order of provisional assessment of the rent.

    This, however, cannot absolve the petitioner-tenant of the legal consequences if the relationship of landlord and tenant is finally proved. Suffice it to observe that the unscrupulous tenants would invariably deny the relationship of landlord and tenant so as to avoid the payment of rent and on conclusion of the case if such relationship is proved, they come forward to tender the arrears of rent. This kind of malpractice, meant to harass the landlord, needs to be nipped in the bud.

    Consequently, the petitioner-tenant is directed to file an undertaking before the Rent Controller, that if the relationship of landlord and tenant is proved between the parties, he shall not claim further opportunity to tender the arrears of rent and shall be liable for all the legal consequences. The undertaking shall be given within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Alternatively, the petitioner, if does not want to give the undertaking as directed above, may tender the arrears of provisionally assessed rent within the given period of two weeks, without prejudice to his legal rights,

    The revision petition is accordingly allowed in the above stated terms and the impugned order dated 2.2.2009 is set-aside. The Rent Controller, Ludhiana shall frame a specific issue as to whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and in case such an issue is decided in affirmative in favour of the landlord, no opportunity shall be granted to the tenant-petitioner to tender the arrears of rent and there shall be an order for eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the demised premises.

    The parties are at liberty to raise their pleas before the Rent Controller.

    Dasti.

    16-09-2009 (SURYA KANT) MohinderJUDGE

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    M/S Chopra Jewellers Petitioner v. Rajender Pal Gupta
    (Sep 16, 2009)