Civil Revision No.5524 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5524 of 2011 Date of Decision:-9.9.2011 Ram Niwas ...Petitioner Versus Anoop Kumar ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.K.L.Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Concisely, the facts, which require to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, are that Anoop Kumar son of Kirti Pal-respondent- plaintiff (for brevity “the plaintiff”) filed the suit against Ram Niwas son of Gurdiyal Singh petitioner-defendant (for short “the defendant”) for a decree of possession by way of ejectment from the shop in dispute. 2. The petitioner-defendant appeared, in pursuance of the summons and the trial Court assessed the arrears of rent, by virtue of impugned order dated 20.7.2011 (Annexure P5), which is as under:- Present:- Sh.Devinder Singh, counsel for the plaintiff. Sh.Sumit Sharma, Counsel for the defendant. Defendant appeared in pursuance of summon served upon him. Memo of appearance on behalf of defendant filed. It has been argued by learned counsel for the plaintiff that defendant is in arrears of rent from 1.10.2008 till 30.9.2009 @ Rs.4000/- per month, from 1.10.2009 till 30.9.2010 @ 4300/- per month and from 1.1.2010 till 30.5.2011 @ 4600/- per month. The agreement has been placed on record. The rent is alleged to have been Rs.4000/- per month upon which the deduction of Rs.1000/- has been made every month on account of advance payment made. Accordingly, Civil Revision No.5524 of 2011 -2- the arrears are assessed as Rs.102300/-, cost is assessed as Rs.500/- and interest is assessed as Rs.11250/- and total arrears are assessed as Rs.1,13,850/- to be paid on or before 5.8.2011.” 3. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the defendant filed the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant, going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant revision petition. 5. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel for petitioner-defendant that since the trial court has assessed the arrears in excess of the amount due, so, the impugned order (Annexure P5) is illegal, lacks merit. 6. As is evident from the record that the defendant has taken the shop in question on rent at the rate of ` 4000/- per month for five years, by way of agreement dated 24.9.2008 (Annexure P1). In that eventuality, he is bound to pay the impugned arrears of rent. Assuming for the sake of argument (though not admitted) that if the trial Court has assessed the amount of rent in excess, at this stage, the same can be adjusted in the subsequent period of tenancy. Thus, to me, as no ground for interference in the impugned order is made out, therefore, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed in the obtaining circumstances of the case. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 9.9.2011 Judge AS