Anjali Foundation vs. Anil Mehra

Held

The Court held that the issue of excess payment made by the tenant prior to filing the petition is yet to be proved, referencing a previous order of this Court dated 12.11.2024. The Court reiterated that at the time of assessing provisional rent, the Rent Controller must primarily consider the pleadings of the parties and other available material to form a prima facie opinion. Set-off should be granted at the time of final adjudication. Account statements relied upon by both parties are still to be proved, and the Rent Controller should not have gone beyond the pleadings. The Court emphasized that the provisional rent must be assessed based on pleadings or documents admitted in the pleadings, citing the Supreme Court's decision in 'Rakesh Wadhawan and others versus Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and others'. The Court directed the Rent Controller to reassess the rent strictly in accordance with the directions issued in the 'Auto Needs' case. Regarding GST, the Court stated that this issue has to be taken care of by the GST Authorities and not by the Rent Controller. The revision petition was disposed of.

Facts

The petitioner, a tenant, filed a revision petition challenging an order passed by the Appellate Authority on 23.01.2025. This followed a previous revision petition where this Court had set aside an order of the Rent Controller and directed reassessment of provisional rent, limiting it to the period after December 2018. The Rent Controller reassessed the rent on 04.01.2025. The tenant then withdrew a subsequent revision petition and approached the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority passed a consent order on 23.01.2025, acknowledging that the tenant had paid Rs. 2,85,25,140/- towards provisional rent, which was in excess of the reassessed amount. The Appellate Authority directed the Rent Controller to consider this undisputed fact. The current revision petition challenges this consent order, with the petitioner claiming no actual consent was given and that the excess payment was not adequately addressed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in passing a consent order when the petitioner claims no consent was given, and if so, what is the consequence for the proceedings? This issue turns on the interpretation of consent and the procedure for challenging orders based on alleged lack of consent. 2. Whether the Appellate Authority correctly addressed the issue of excess provisional rent paid by the petitioner, and if not, what relief should be granted? This issue relates to the proper accounting of payments made by the tenant in relation to the assessed provisional rent. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that no actual consent was given for the order passed by the Appellate Authority, despite the order stating otherwise. They argue that even though the order mentioned a set-off for Rs. 2,85,25,140/-, the excess amount paid by the tenant has not been adequately accounted for in the provisional rent assessment. They rely on account statements to support their claim. Respondent's arguments: The respondent (landlord) argues that the Rent Controller was required to assess rent up to the date of the order determining provisional rent, citing the case of 'Auto Needs versus Rajeev Sood'. They also note that the liberty granted to move a fresh ejectment petition for the period post-February 2022 is relevant.