In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 6780 of 2006 Date of decision:February 08, 2008 Sanjay Garg and another ---Petitioners Vs. Avtar Singh Brar & another ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR Present: Mr.Rahul Gupta, Advocate, for Mr. P.K.Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the respondents. *** M.M.KUMAR. J. The instant petition is directed against the order dated 27.11.2006 (Annexure P-14) passed by the Rent Controller, Patiala directing the petitioners to pay rent to the landlord-respondent at the rate of Rs. 650/- per month as assessed vide order dated 2.5.2005 (Annexure P-10). The Rent Controller has clarified that against the order dated 2.5.2005 the petitioners have filed Civil Revision No. 2994 of 2005 (Annexure P-11) which came up for consideration before this Court. The order dated 2.5.2005 was concededly passed on an application filed by the petitioners (P-8), yet it was argued that the petitioners were alleged to be sub tenants and the Rent Controller had directed all the respondents to pay the arrears of rent. On that basis clarification was sought and this Court clarified the Civil Revision No. 6780 of 2006 -2- order by observing that the tenant Anil Bansal who was respondent No. 1 in the Rent Application, was in fact asked to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 650/- per month. Even at that stage, it was not pointed out that order dated 02.05.2005 has been passed on the application filed by petitioners who are stated to sub tenants. This aspect has now been clarified by the rent Controller in the impugned order by stating that the order dated 2.5.2005 in fact was passed on the application filed by the petitioners. The operative part of the order dated 27.11.2006 passed by the Rent Controller reads as under:- “The revision petition filed by the respondents against the order dated 2.5.2005 was got dismissed by them by saying that this order was passed against respondent No. 1, which is not factually correct, as the rent was assessed on the application of respondents no. 2 and 3 themselves and all the respondents including respondents No. 2 and 3 were asked to tender the rent.” After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that once the petitioners have themselves filed the application inviting the rate of rent, there was hardly any room to seek clarification of the order dated 2.5.2005 which has led to the passing of order on 27.5.2005 that it was the original landlord Anil Bansal who was meant to pay the rent. The correct position has now been clarified by the Rent Controller in the impugned order. Accordingly, the petitioners are Civil Revision No. 6780 of 2006 -3- liable to pay rent at the rate assessed. There is thus no merit in the revision petition. Dismissed. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear befre the Rent Controller on 22.2.2008. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE February 08, 2008 sunita/paramjit