UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Simple Denial of Landlord-Tenant Relationship Insufficient to Prevent Provisional Rent Assessment: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Ejectment for Non-Payment of Rent

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a mere denial of the landlord-tenant relationship is not enough to stop the court from assessing provisional rent. This came in the context of a landlord-tenant dispute where the tenant failed to disclose the basis of possession over the property. The decision was given by Justice Sukhvinder Kaur in the case of Lucky Malik @ Bangali vs. Akali Times Trust.

The court dealt with the issue of provisional rent assessment and subsequent ejectment of the tenant for non-payment under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. The crux was whether a simple denial of the landlord-tenant relationship could negate the need for provisional rent assessment.

The dispute revolved around a property in Jalandhar, where the respondent Trust claimed the petitioner as their tenant since 2008, alleging non-payment of rent from July 2010. The petitioner, denying the landlord-tenant relationship, contested the trust's ownership and his liability to pay rent.

Justice Sukhvinder Kaur, in her judgment, emphasized that the trust was established as the owner of the premises based on a civil court decree dated 29.09.1980. The petitioner's possession of the property was not disputed; however, his failure to clarify the basis of possession raised questions. The court asserted, "Under the garb of denial of tenancy, the tenant cannot be allowed to enjoy the property." Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Asha Rani Gupta Vs. Sri Vineet Kumar, underscoring the obligation to assess provisional rent in the absence of a clear disclosure of possession basis by the tenant.

The High Court dismissed the revision petitions filed by the petitioner, Lucky Malik, affirming the orders of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. The ejectment of the petitioner for non-payment of provisional rent was upheld, guided by the precedent set in Rakesh Wadhawan vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, which mandates compliance with the order of provisional rent.

Date of Decision: 13.02.2024

Lucky Malik @ Bangali vs. Akali Times Trust

Latest Legal News