IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6429 of 2010 Date of decision: October 04, 2010. Indu Bala ...Petitioner(s) v. Sushil Kumar ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri Ravindra Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): Grievance of the petitioner in the present revision petition is that the Rent Controller has committed a grave error in excluding the rent- note, dated 3.5.2000 (Annexure P-1) which contained a clause of rent enhancement. Counsel states that while assessing the provisional rent, enhancement clause ought to have been taken into consideration by the Rent Controller. The tenant had disputed the validity of the rent-note and the clause whereby rent was to be increased periodically. Therefore, the Rent Controller had determined the provisional rent as Rs.1200/- per month. The present revision petition is disposed of with an observation that subject to evidence led by the parties, validity of rent-note and clause whereby rent is to be increased, shall be determined by the Rent Controller and in case Rent Controller comes to the conclusion that rent note had been duly executed by the parties and the enhancement clause has to prevail, the deficiency in rent shall be made good by the tenant later on. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] October 04, 2010. Judge kadyan