IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 3693 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 7th July, 2009. Mangal Singh Petitioner through Mr. Gourave Bhayyia, Advocate Versus Vijay Kumar Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) The petitioner is aggrieved at the order dated 16.4.2009 passed by the Rent Controller, Fazilka whereby provisional rent @ Rs. 3000/- has been assessed for the subject premises and the petitioner has been asked to pay arrears of rent w.e.f. 30.10.2007 The petitioner is a tenant in the subject premises, which, it appears from the photographs, is a small shop and a part of the staircase. The respondent – landlord has filed an eviction petition against the petitioner. Pending that petition, it is the petitioner – tenant who moved an application for assessment of the provisional rent and has invited the impugned order whereby provisional rent @ Rs.3000/- per month has been assessed on the basis of the rent note dated 29.11.2006 allegedly executed by the petitioner himself. On the contrary, the petitioner’s case is that the monthly rent is Rs.200/- only. The petitioner, however, has not been able to deny the execution of the rent note dated 29.11.2006, though, according to him, the said rent note was got executed from him fraudulently and by mis-representation of facts. The petitioner’s contention, suffice it to say, is a pure question of fact. If he takes up such a plea, an issue would be framed to give him an opportunity to prove his case. Till such time, the petitioner can not escape from his liability to pay the provisionally assessed rent. In case the petitioner’s plea is accepted, the excess payment, if any, shall be adjusted against the future rent. In this view of the matter, no interference in the impugned order is called for at this stage. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is doing Embroidery work in the small shop and tendering of huge arrears of rent within the period granted by the Rent Controller would cause extreme hardship to him. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances, it is directed that the petitioner may tender the arrears of rent either in lump-sum or in three installments before 31.12.2009. However, he shall continue to pay the provisional monthly rent without prejudice to his legal rights. Disposed of. Dasti. July 07, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE