IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4692 of 2007 Date of decision:16.03.2009 Vinod Kumar ...Petitioner versus Raj Rani ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. G.S.Jagpal, Advocate for Mr. R.S.Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. 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 ? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The tenant is in revision against the provisional assessment of rent on the ground that the assessment order did not make reference to interest and costs. The admitted case is that the arrears of rent as contended by the landlord had not been paid before the period when which it was supposed to have been paid. The Rent Controller had directed that the amount should be paid before 17th August, 2006. On that date, the amount was not paid and the consequence of such non payment by an order of ejectment was applied. 2. The contention of the tenant was that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other decisions relating to payment of provisional rent, the Rent Controller ought to have determined interest and cost also and hence the same had not been paid. Civil Revision No.4692 of 2007 - 2 - This contention is merely stated to be rejected for the direction relating to cost or interest although appropriate if there had been no such direction, it was only the landlord who ought to have had a cause for complaint. The tenant who has been directed to pay the rent cannot be said to be the aggrieved person against such a direction. The revision itself not justified and I dismiss the same as devoid of any merits. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 16.03.2009 sanjeev