IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.7798 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 19.12.2011 Harpeet Singh Dhawan ......Petitioner(s) Versus Ramanpreet Gill ......Respondent(s) CR No.7838 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 19.12.2011 Jaspreet Singh Dhawan ......Petitioner(s) Versus Ramanpreet Gill ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) This judgment shall dispose of two revision petitions i.e. CR No.7798 and 7838 of 2011 as a common question of law arises in both the petitions on similar facts. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from CR No.7798 of 2011. As per the averments made in this petition, the Rent Controller, Ludhiana assessed the provisional rent of the demised premises vide order dated 19.10.2011 for the period w.e.f. 1.9.2001 till 15.10.2011 at Rs.3,00,441/- plus interest of Rs.90883/- and costs of Rs.5,000/- (total amount of Rs.3,96,324/-). The petitioner-tenant has challenged the aforesaid order by filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority which is pending. Along with this appeal, the petitioner also moved an application for stay of the operation of the aforesaid assessment order passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana. Vide impugned order, the Appellate Authority while disposing of the application for stay has directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the amount assessed by the Rent Controller vide order dated 19.10.2011. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that there is a dispute with regard to relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and thus, the Rent Controller was not competent to assess the provisional rent in view of the settled proposition of law. Not only this, according to the petitioner, there is a dispute regarding title of the landlord with regard to property in dispute and various civil suits are pending in this regard between the landlord and other persons, who are claiming the ownership and title of the suit property and thus, in view of the aforesaid fact, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel has also disputed the liability of the petitioner to the period to pay the rent. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. Admittedly, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the assessment order of provisional rent is pending before the Appellate Authority and thus, any argument raised on merits of the case at this stage cannot be looked into by the Court and it is for the petitioner to raise the aforesaid argument before the Appellate Authority before whom the matter is pending. The Court below while considering the question of ad interim stay of the assessment order has directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the amount as assessed after considering the facts and circumstances of the case. It is well settled that the revisional Court should be slow in interfering an order of the Subordinate Authorities passed while exercising its discretionary powers. Otherwise also it has not been shown how the exercise of discretionary power was wrongly exercised. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in these petitions. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the amount as ordered by the Appellate Authority vide impugned order be deposited with the Court itself and shall not be disbursed to any of the parties till the disposal of the main appeal pending before it against the order of provisional assessment of rent. However, in a case of dismissal of the appeal of the petitioner, the respondent-landlord shall be entitled to get the aforesaid amount and the same be released to him. The Appellate Authority is further directed to dispose of the appeal within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is made clear that in case the petitioner fails to comply with the aforesaid order, the interim order passed in his favour by the Appellate Authority shall come to an end and the order of assessment of provisional rent will become operative. Both the petitions are dismissed with aforestated observations. December 19, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.7838 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 19.12.2011 Jaspreet Singh Dhawan ......Petitioner(s) Versus Ramanpreet Gill ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) For orders, see CR No.7798 of 2011. December 19, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE