The Punjab and Haryana High Court confirms that provisional rent may be assessed even if the relationship of landlord and tenant is disputed and an issue is framed on that question; the Appellate Authority’s direction to assess provisional rent is held valid. This upholds existing precedent and clarifies the obligations for both landlords and tenants in rent control disputes, providing clear binding guidance for Rent Controllers and Appellate Authorities within the jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CR/3213/2025 of ANKUSH JAIN Vs ABHIRAJ SINGH CHAWLA |
| CNR | PHHC010838902025 |
| Date of Registration | 22-05-2025 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single Bench (MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA) |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms the Appellate Authority’s direction to assess provisional rent |
| Type of Law | Rent control – procedural law |
| Questions of Law | Whether assessment of provisional rent by Rent Controller is barred when the relationship of landlord and tenant is in dispute and an issue is framed on that point. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court held that a dispute regarding the landlord-tenant relationship, even if an issue is framed, does not bar the Rent Controller from provisionally assessing rent. Any amount provisionally deposited can be refunded if the relationship is ultimately not established, but refusal to deposit exposes the tenant to immediate eviction if the relationship is later affirmed. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner was tenant under Sh. K.S. Chawla, who transferred ownership to Taranjit Singh, and then to the respondent. The petitioner denied landlord–tenant relationship with the respondent. The Rent Controller avoided assessing provisional rent due to this dispute; the Appellate Authority set aside that order, directing assessment of provisional rent. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All Rent Controllers and subordinate courts within Punjab and Haryana jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and potentially the Supreme Court in the context of analogous rent control issues |
| Follows | Follows settled principles regarding provisional rent and landlord-tenant relationship adjudication |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court explicitly confirms that the existence of a dispute about the landlord-tenant relationship—reflected by the framing of an issue—does not bar provisional assessment of rent.
- Tenants are cautioned: if they choose not to deposit provisionally assessed rent and the relationship is later established, they risk imminent eviction.
- Provisional rent paid can be refunded to the tenant if ultimately no landlord-tenant relationship is found.
- This judgment strengthens the procedural obligation for tenants to comply with provisional rent assessment orders, notwithstanding disputes over the relationship.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted the undisputed facts: the petitioner originally became a tenant under the previous owner, and ownership was lawfully transferred through two deeds down to the current landlord.
- The High Court reasoned that a mere dispute or even the framing of an issue regarding the landlord-tenant relationship does not prevent the assessment of provisional rent.
- The judgment emphasizes that issues framed are to be adjudicated upon evidence; withholding provisional rent exposes the tenant to eviction if the relationship is found to exist.
- The High Court reinforced the principle that any provisional rent paid is subject to refund if the landlord-tenant relationship is not ultimately established.
- The Appellate Authority’s approach was found legally correct and consistent with settled principles.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Once the question of landlord–tenant relationship is disputed and specifically framed as an issue, the Rent Controller cannot proceed to assess provisional rent.
- Asserted that no tenancy ever existed between himself and the present landlord.
Respondent (Landlord):
- The tenancy under previous landlord was admitted by the petitioner.
- The chain of transfers (to Taranjit Singh and then to the respondent) lawfully vested the property in the respondent.
- Submitted that the relationship of landlord and tenant stood established by operation of law, entitling assessment of provisional rent.
Factual Background
The dispute arose from a rent petition filed for the ejectment of the tenant (petitioner) by the landlord (respondent) on the ground of non-payment of rent, following two consecutive ownership transfers. The petitioner admitted taking the premises on rent in 2010 under the original owner but disputed the landlord-tenant relationship with the current owner following transfers in 2017 and 2018. The Rent Controller declined to assess provisional rent owing to the dispute, but the Appellate Authority remitted the matter with direction to do so. The matter came before the High Court in revision.
Statutory Analysis
The court addressed the procedural provisions under the relevant Rent Control legislation, specifically with respect to the powers and duties of the Rent Controller regarding provisional rent assessment where the relationship is disputed. The judgment clarifies that mere framing of an issue on the existence of a relationship does not prevent the Rent Controller from assessing and directing deposit of provisional rent; such deposit is without prejudice to either party and is to be dealt with as per final findings.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or requirements were set by the court in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms and clarifies existing legal precedent regarding provisional rent assessment when landlord-tenant relationship is in dispute.
Citations
None specifically provided or referenced in the available judgment text.