IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1) C.R.No.3887 of 2010 (O&M) M/s Chartwel Human Resources Company Pvt.Limited and another ....Petitioners Versus M/s Raj Glazier Pvt. Ltd. and another ...Respondents 2) C.R.No.4080 of 2010 (O&M) M/s Raj Glazier Private Limited and another ....Petitioners Versus M/s Chartwel Human Resources Company Pvt.Ltd. and others ...Respondents Date of Decision : 5.7.2010 CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.S.K.Garg Narwana, Advocate for the petitioners in C.R.No.3887 of 2010. Ms.Deepali Puri, Advocate for the petitioners in C.R.No.4080 of 2010. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. C.M.No.15126-CII of 2010 in C.R.No.3887 of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. C.M.No.16236-CII of 2010 in C.R.No.4080 of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. C.R.No.3887 of 2010 (O&M) -2- C.M. NO.15127-CII in/and C.R.No.3887 of 2010 & C.R.No.4080 of 2010 This order shall dispose of both the aforesaid revision petitions. The learned Rent Controller had earlier assessed the provisional rent of the demised premises at the rate of Rs.2 lacs per month which led to the filing of a revision petition before this Court in which the parties were ad idem that there appears to be some error in the amount of Rs.20,000/- which was determined as provisional rent. The reason for such apprehension was the registered lease depicting the rate of rent as Rs.2 lacs per month. The petitioners/tenants in Civil Revision No.3887 of 2010, as a measure of defence had set up a plea that the rate of rent was not Rs.2 lacs but was Rs.80,000/- per month only. The parties thereafter went to the learned Rent Controller after the directions given by this Court to move an application for correction in the order of the Rent Controller assessing the provisional rent in the first instantce. The respondents/landlord relied upon the registered lease deed in which the rate of rent was mentioned as Rs.2 lacs and concluded that in the first order dated. 22.3.2010, the rectification of which was sought, an amount of Rs.20,000/- had erroneously been mentioned and in fact it should have been Rs.2 lacs based on the terms of the registered lease deed. It is this order which is the cause of grievance to the petitioners/tenant. Learned counsel for the petitioners/tenant contends that the rate of rent was in fact Rs.80,000/- and not Rs.2 lacs. His sole case is C.R.No.3887 of 2010 (O&M) -3- based on an unregistered document while the case of the respondents/landlord is based on a registered lease deed which was prima facie taken note of by the learned Rent Controller as well. Learned counsel for the respondents/landlord, who filed Civil Revision No.4080 of 2010 praying that the rent petition be decided in accordance with law, has reiterated the arguments raised before the learned Rent Controller and has also relied upon the registered lease deed to substantiate her plea. During the course of arguments the parties have agreed that if the petitioners in Civil Revision No.3887 of 2010 pay a sum of Rs.10 lacs and if directions are given to the learned Rent Controller to dispose of the rent petition in a time bound manner, they shall be satisfied. On the basis of consensual approach of the parties, this Court is of the opinion that both the revision petitions can be disposed of in the following terms :- i) The petitioners/tenant shall deposit a sum of Rs.10 lacs within a period of one month from today before the learned Rent Controller on account of arrears of rent which shall be paid to the respondents/landlord forthwith. ii) The petitioners /tenant shall not commit any future default in the payment of rent and shall continue to pay the same @ Rs.1 lac per month to the respondents/landlord which amount shall be deposited by the 7th of each month. Any default made on this account shall invite adverse inference against the petitioners/tenant. C.R.No.3887 of 2010 (O&M) -4- iii) The Rent Controller shall make endeavours to dispose of the rent petition within a period 8 months from today positively. The parties shall not make any attempt to delay the proceedings by resorting to any frivolous adjournments. With the aforesaid observations the revision petitions and the stay application bearing No.15127-CII of 2010 stand disposed of. The consent given by the parties is only restricted to the disposal of the present revision petitions and no inference shall be derived by the Rent Controller from such a consent of the parties. 5.7.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss