CR No.1045 of 2010 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1045 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 01.03.2011 Sarabjit Singh . . .Petitioner Versus Chottu Ram . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Padam Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Arun Jindal, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This revision petition is directed against order dated 02.02.2010 passed by the Rent Controller, Patiala by which application for assessment of the provisional rent filed by the landlord was disposed of on the ground that there is no relationship of tenant and landlord between the parties and in case the petitioner succeed to prove the relationship during the trial, the tenant would not have the right to tender the rent and would be liable to be evicted straightway. The landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short ‘the Act’) alleging that the demised premises is in possession of the tenant at a monthly rent of `2000/- vide rent note dated 4.10.1993 in which there was a clause of increase of 15% rent every year. He also alleged that the present rate of rent started from 4.10.2005 is `4200/- per month but the tenant has not paid the rent as per the enhanced rate agreed vide rent note dated 4.10.1993. Thus, it was claimed that the tenant has made himself liable for ejectment on the ground of arrears of rent from 1.2.2006 at the rate of `4200/- per month. In the written statement, the relationship of landlord and tenant was specifically denied. Admittedly, on the pleadings of the parties, there is an issue CR No.1045 of 2010 (O&M) - 2 - about the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Once, the relationship of landlord and tenant is denied, it is settled by this Court by way of various authorities that the Rent Controller is not obliged to assess the provisional rent and at the same time if ultimately after trial, it is found that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the tenant would not have any right to save his tenancy by offering the rent. In that circumstance, the ejectment would follow on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent. In view thereof, I do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Patiala. Hence, the revision petition is hereby dismissed. No costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) MARCH 01, 2011 JUDGE Vivek