Devi Dayal v. Tarsem Chand

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. K.K. Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Respondent-tenant had filed an application under Section 12 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’) with a prayer that repair of roof of the demised premises be carried out. The appellate Court below came to a conclusion that only Rs.1,900/- are to be incurred for carrying the repair and ordered that repair be carried out. Counsel for the petitioner states that in fact, the roof of the demised premises has already been repaired. In the present case, the only prayer made is that in the application filed by the respondent-tenant, an averment was made that he was ready to pay the rent ten times the prevailing rent. Learned counsel states that in view of this averment, this Court should cause interference and increase the rent. Civil Revision No.6711 of 2008 2 In the application filed under Section 12 of the Act, the respondent-tenant had restricted his claim to repair of roof of the demised premises. For increase of rent, petitioner has another remedy available under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, in the proceedings initiated by the respondent-tenant, this Court cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner-landlord. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner states that he be permitted to withdraw the present petition, with liberty to agitate, inter alia, for increase of the rent. As prayed, dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty aforesaid. August 16, 2010 [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE