Civil Revision No. 6075 of 2006 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 6075 of 2006 Date of Decision: 15.12.2008 Inderbir Singh …Petitioner Versus Smt. Paramjit Dhillon …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr.Sarabjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Munish Behl, Advocate for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Two Courts below have given a concurrent finding of fact that rent of shop was Rs.285/- per month and it rejected the stand of the tenant that rent was Rs.150/- per month. The tenant has tendered the rent at the rate of Rs.150/- per month on 1.9.2005. Learned Rent Controller had granted two months time to the tenant to make the deficiency good. The tenant could not deposit the difference of the rent and preferred an appeal. Learned Appellate Authority had not extended the time, therefore, had ordered eviction of the tenant on the ground of shortage of tender. It was held in Rakesh Wadhawan v. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation 2002(1) Rent Control Reporter 514 that any deficiency in the amount of rent can be made good later. Learned Appellate Authority should have extended the time and given a liberty to the tenant to make the deficiency good. Civil Revision No. 6075 of 2006 2 The argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the adjoining shop, rent is Rs.100/- per month and, therefore, the Courts below have given a wrong finding of fact that rent was not Rs.150/-. The counsel intend to assail this concurrent finding of two Courts below. I am afraid that no re-appraisal and re-appreciation of evidence is permissible while exercising revisional jurisdiction by this Court. Therefore, finding of fact recorded by the two Courts below that rent was Rs.285/- per month is upheld. However, taking into consideration law initiated in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra), I am of the view that learned Appellate Authority should have afforded a reasonable opportunity to the tenant to make the deficiency good. Since two months time was granted by learned Rent Controller on 1.9.2005, the petitioner-tenant is liable to pay 9% interest on the amount which has been found due towards him. He shall also pay the entire arrears of rent along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Since the tenant had not deposited the amount within two months specified by learned Rent Controller, he is also fastened with the cost of Rs.5,000/-. Amount found due by learned Rent Controller along with arrears at the rate of 9% interest along with cost be deposited within three months from today. Non deposit of amount shall make tenant liable for eviction. With these observations, the present revision petition is disposed off. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge December 15, 2008 “DK”