TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court sets Rs. 2000/month rent, emphasizes Section 13(2)(i) compliance, orders fresh assessment.</h1> <h3>Rakesh Wadhawan & Ors Versus M/s. Jagdamba Industrial</h3> The Supreme Court determined the rate of rent to be Rs. 2000/- per month, upheld compliance requirements under Section 13(2)(i) of the Act, and emphasized ... - Issues Involved:1. Determination of the rate of rent.2. Compliance with the proviso u/s 13(2)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrictions Act, 1949.3. Interpretation and application of the proviso to Section 13(2)(i) of the Act.Summary:1. Determination of the Rate of Rent:The primary issue was to determine whether the agreed rate of rent was Rs. 2000/- or Rs. 1800/- per month. The Rent Controller held the rate of rent to be Rs. 2000/- excluding water and electricity charges, based on evidence including the lease deed and a letter from the tenants. The Appellate Authority, however, found the rent to be Rs. 1800/- and reversed the eviction order. The Supreme Court held that the rate of rent was indeed Rs. 2000/- per month, as the tenants had paid this amount for several months and failed to provide a convincing reason for not acting upon the agreed rate.2. Compliance with Proviso u/s 13(2)(i) of the Act:The tenants argued that they had complied with the proviso u/s 13(2)(i) by tendering Rs. 88,185/- before the Rent Controller. The Supreme Court noted that there was a genuine dispute regarding the rate of rent, and the amount tendered was marginally short. The Court emphasized that the proviso obliges the Controller to make an assessment of arrears, interest, and costs, and then quantify the amount to be paid by the tenant on the first date of hearing after such assessment.3. Interpretation and Application of Proviso to Section 13(2)(i):The Court highlighted the deficiencies in the Act and the need for a provisional assessment by the Rent Controller to resolve disputes about arrears of rent. The Court stated that the Controller must assess the arrears, interest, and costs provisionally, and the tenant must pay or tender this amount on the first date of hearing after the assessment. If the tenant complies, the inquiry continues; if not, an eviction order follows. The Controller can pass a conditional order for eviction, giving the tenant a reasonable time to pay any deficit found in the final adjudication.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the High Court, the Rent Controller, and the Appellate Authority, and remanded the case back to the Controller for a fresh decision consistent with the law as settled by the Court. The costs before the Appellate Authority, the High Court, and the Supreme Court were to be borne by the parties as incurred, with costs before the Controller to abide by the result.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
