CR No.982 of 2011 -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.982 of 2011 Date of decision:02.05.2011. Bala Kamal Hitanga ...Petitioner Versus Harjinder Kaur ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Vikas Kumar Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Jai Deep Verma, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order by which the provisional rent has been assessed by the learned Rent Controller and the interest has been assessed @ 12% per annum. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to assess the interest @ 12% per annum which is contrary to the statutory provisions as provided under Section 13(2)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short “the Act”], which reads as under: - “Provided that if the tenant on the first hearing of the application for ejectment after due service pays or tenders the arrears of rent and interest at six per cent per annum on such arrears together with the cost of application assessed by the Controller, the tenant shall be deemed to have duly paid or tendered the CR No.982 of 2011 -2- ***** rent within the time aforesaid.” Since the learned Rent Controller has assessed the component of interest @ 12% per annum ,therefore, there is a patent error in the impugned order, hence, the same is hereby set aside. The learned Rent Controller is directed to re-assess the provisional rent with interest @ 6% per annum and fix the date for its tender by the tenant. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. May 02, 2011. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge