CR-1980-2021 (O&M) [279] Ramesh Kumar and another Kaushal Rani Coram : Present: PANKAJ JAIN CM-8834 [1] Act for condonation of delay of 347 days in filing the present petition. [2] satisfied that the petitioners have made sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 347 days in filing of the petiti [3] the petition is condoned. CR-1980- [4] Rent Controller, Fazilka as well as the Appellate Authority, Fazilka, whereby rate of rent payable by the tenant has been assessed @ Rs.3,000/ In order to prove rate of rent, landlord produc (Exhibit A 2021 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-1980- Date of Decision : 01.05.2025 Ramesh Kumar and another versus Kaushal Rani alias Kaushalya Devi HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Mr. Aakash Singla, Advocate for the petitioners. *** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) 8834-CII-2021 This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 347 days in filing the present petition. For the reasons recorded in the application, this Court is satisfied that the petitioners have made sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 347 days in filing of the petition. Application stands allowed the petition is condoned. -2021 (O&M) Tenant(s) is in revision, aggrieved of judgments passed by the Rent Controller, Fazilka as well as the Appellate Authority, Fazilka, whereby rate of rent payable by the tenant has been assessed @ Rs.3,000/ In order to prove rate of rent, landlord produc (Exhibit A-1). The same is not denied, however, the plea of the tenant was IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -2021 (O&M) Date of Decision : 01.05.2025 …Petitioners ….Respondent PANKAJ JAIN Mr. Aakash Singla, Advocate This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 347 days in filing the present petition. For the reasons recorded in the application, this Court is satisfied that the petitioners have made sufficient cause for condonation of and delay of 347 days in filing of Tenant(s) is in revision, aggrieved of judgments passed by the Rent Controller, Fazilka as well as the Appellate Authority, Fazilka, whereby rate of rent payable by the tenant has been assessed @ Rs.3,000/ In order to prove rate of rent, landlord produced rent note dated 09.09.2004 1). The same is not denied, however, the plea of the tenant was 1 This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation For the reasons recorded in the application, this Court is satisfied that the petitioners have made sufficient cause for condonation of and delay of 347 days in filing of Tenant(s) is in revision, aggrieved of judgments passed by the Rent Controller, Fazilka as well as the Appellate Authority, Fazilka, whereby rate of rent payable by the tenant has been assessed @ Rs.3,000/-. ed rent note dated 09.09.2004 1). The same is not denied, however, the plea of the tenant was RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.05.06 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-1980-2021 (O&M) that even though the rent note mentioned the rate of rent @ Rs.3000/ fact, the actual rate was fixed @ Rs.1500/ tenant relies upon admission made by the landlady which was rent out in the year 2014 vide rent note dated 25.06.2014. Though, the rent note mentioned rate of rent as Rs.6000/ landlady is stated to have admitted tha per month. Apart from the aforesaid evidence with respect to the adjoining shop, Mr. Singla, counsel for the petitioners submits that monetary transactions with respect to payment of Rs.1500/ as Exhibit R tenant to the husband of the landlord. He submits that the landlady was specifically confronted with the aforesaid cheques. She however denied that the same was payment of rent. A that it is her husband, who can explain the same. Mr. Singla, counsel for the petitioners submits that it was to show as to for what purpose the aforesaid transactions w [5] through records of the case. [6] rightly relied upon Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act to hold that in presence of the rent note, which was admittedly executed between the parties, the ocular evidence adduced by the tenant looked into. [7] respect to adjoining shop also s Rs.3000/- 2021 (O&M) that even though the rent note mentioned the rate of rent @ Rs.3000/ fact, the actual rate was fixed @ Rs.1500/ tenant relies upon admission made by the landlady which was rent out in the year 2014 vide rent note dated 25.06.2014. Though, the rent note mentioned rate of rent as Rs.6000/ landlady is stated to have admitted that she was receiving rent of Rs.3000/ per month. Apart from the aforesaid evidence with respect to the adjoining shop, Mr. Singla, counsel for the petitioners submits that monetary transactions with respect to payment of Rs.1500/ as Exhibit R-6 to Exhibit R-11, whereby rent of Rs.1500/ tenant to the husband of the landlord. He submits that the landlady was specifically confronted with the aforesaid cheques. She however denied that the same was payment of rent. At the same time, she categorically stated that it is her husband, who can explain the same. Mr. Singla, counsel for the petitioners submits that it was for the landlady to show as to for what purpose the aforesaid transactions w I have heard counsel for the petitioners and have carefully gone through records of the case. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Courts below have rightly relied upon Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act to hold that in presence of the rent note, which was admittedly executed between the parties, the ocular evidence adduced by the tenant looked into. In the considered opinion of this Court, the rent note with respect to adjoining shop also shows that the rate of rent in the vicinity was - per month. The plea with respect to non that even though the rent note mentioned the rate of rent @ Rs.3000/- but in fact, the actual rate was fixed @ Rs.1500/-. In order to prove the same, tenant relies upon admission made by the landlady qua adjoining shop, which was rent out in the year 2014 vide rent note dated 25.06.2014. Though, the rent note mentioned rate of rent as Rs.6000/- per month but the t she was receiving rent of Rs.3000/ per month. Apart from the aforesaid evidence with respect to the adjoining shop, Mr. Singla, counsel for the petitioners submits that monetary transactions with respect to payment of Rs.1500/- were produced on record 11, whereby rent of Rs.1500/- was paid by the tenant to the husband of the landlord. He submits that the landlady was specifically confronted with the aforesaid cheques. She however denied that t the same time, she categorically stated that it is her husband, who can explain the same. Mr. Singla, counsel for the the landlady to examine her husband and to show as to for what purpose the aforesaid transactions were affected. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and have carefully gone In the considered opinion of this Court, the Courts below have rightly relied upon Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act to hold that in presence of the rent note, which was admittedly executed between the parties, the ocular evidence adduced by the tenant-petitioner cannot be In the considered opinion of this Court, the rent note with hows that the rate of rent in the vicinity was per month. The plea with respect to non-examination of husband 2 but in . In order to prove the same, adjoining shop, which was rent out in the year 2014 vide rent note dated 25.06.2014. per month but the t she was receiving rent of Rs.3000/- per month. Apart from the aforesaid evidence with respect to the adjoining shop, Mr. Singla, counsel for the petitioners submits that monetary were produced on record was paid by the tenant to the husband of the landlord. He submits that the landlady was specifically confronted with the aforesaid cheques. She however denied that t the same time, she categorically stated that it is her husband, who can explain the same. Mr. Singla, counsel for the examine her husband and I have heard counsel for the petitioners and have carefully gone In the considered opinion of this Court, the Courts below have rightly relied upon Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act to hold that in the presence of the rent note, which was admittedly executed between the petitioner cannot be In the considered opinion of this Court, the rent note with hows that the rate of rent in the vicinity was examination of husband RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.05.06 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-1980-2021 (O&M) of the landlady also cannot be upon the cheques drawn in favour of the husband of the l upon the tenant to prove the nature of such transactions was no occasion for tenant to pay rent to husband of landlady note was not executed in favour of the tenant by the husband landlady. In v Rent Act have rightly held that the rate of rent Rs.3000/- [8] ordered to be [9] disposed off. 01.05.2025 ‘R. Sharma' 2021 (O&M) of the landlady also cannot be held against her. It is the tenant, who relied upon the cheques drawn in favour of the husband of the l upon the tenant to prove the nature of such transactions was no occasion for tenant to pay rent to husband of landlady note was not executed in favour of the tenant by the husband landlady. In view thereof, this Court finds that both the authorities under the Rent Act have rightly held that the rate of rent - per month relying upon the rent note. Finding no merits in the present revision petition, the ordered to be dismissed. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed off. 01.05.2025 Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable against her. It is the tenant, who relied upon the cheques drawn in favour of the husband of the landlady. Onus was upon the tenant to prove the nature of such transactions. Apparently, there was no occasion for tenant to pay rent to husband of landlady when the rent note was not executed in favour of the tenant by the husband, but by iew thereof, this Court finds that both the authorities under the Rent Act have rightly held that the rate of rent qua the shop, in question, was per month relying upon the rent note. Finding no merits in the present revision petition, the same is All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No 3 against her. It is the tenant, who relied andlady. Onus was . Apparently, there when the rent but by iew thereof, this Court finds that both the authorities under the the shop, in question, was same is All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.05.06 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document