C.M.No.17247-CII of 2011 in/and 1 Civil Revision No.447 of 2006(O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.No.17247-CII of 2011 in/and Civil Revision No.447 of 2006(O&M) Date of decision:31.10.2011 Gurjinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus Surinder Singh and another ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. J.S.Brar, Advocate for Mr. B.S.Bhalla, Advocate for the non-applicant-petitioner. Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate for the applicant-respondents. RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL) This is tenant's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 05.11.2005 whereby provisional rent of the demised premises was assessed. On 31.01.2006, the following order was passed by this Court:- “Contends that the learned trial court has assessed the provisional rent at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month in view of the assured market rent and holding that the petitioner has not led any evidence, although the case is yet to be fixed for evidence. Admitted. Stay operation of the impugned order, in the meantime.” C.M.No.17247-CII of 2011 in/and 2 Civil Revision No.447 of 2006(O&M) Respondents-landlords have moved the instant application i.e.17247-CII of 2011 for vacating the ex-parte interim aforesaid order. Notice of this application was given to the counsel for the petitioner vide order dated 26.07.2011. As per office report, notice of this application was duly effected upon the counsel for the petitioner. However, none had put in appearance on behalf of petitioner on 05.09.2011 and the case was adjourned for today i.e. 31.10.2011. Today again, a request has been made for adjournment which is not justified and the same is declined. Even, it may be noticed that the impugned order of the Rent Controller is appealable in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Harjit Singh Uppal v. Anup Bansal, JT 2011 (6) SC 236 wherein it has been observed as under:- “Section 15(1) (b) of the 1949 Rent Act provides, to a person aggrieved by an order passed by the Rent Controller, a remedy of appeal. The Section provides for limitation for filing an appeal from that order and also the forum to which such appeal would lie. The provision, for maintaining the appeal, does not make any difference between the final order and interlocutory order passed by the Rent Controller in the proceedings under the 1949 Rent Act. There is no specific provision in the Section that if a party aggrieved by an interlocutory order passed by the Rent Controller does not challenge that order in appeal immediately, though provided, and waits for the final outcome, whether in the appeal challenging the final order of the Rent C.M.No.17247-CII of 2011 in/and 3 Civil Revision No.447 of 2006(O&M) Controller, the correctness of the interlocutory order from which an appeal lay could or could not be challenged in the appeal from the final order.” Thus, the revision petition itself is not maintainable. The main petition is taken on Board and the same is dismissed with the observations that the petitioner may seek his remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. October 31, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) savita JUDGE