IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2389 of 2009 Date of decision:30.04.2009 Rahul Malhotra ...Petitioner versus Vijay Kumar and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Ashok Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner. ----- 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 landlord is in revision against the order determining a provisional rent in a case where the tenant denied by his written statement the relationship of landlord and tenant, but still offered himself willing to pay such rent as the Court may determine. The Rent Controller determined the provisional rent of Rs.2400/- per month, which was directed to be paid w.e.f. 01.04.2007 with interest at 6% and costs. The tenant made the tender which the landlord refused. The Rent Controller recorded the said fact and framed issues on 28.02.2009 and directed the case to be adjourned to 18.05.2009 for evidence. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when there was a case of denial of jural relationship, the Court ought not to have proceeded to determine provisional rent. While the Rent Civil Revision No.2389 of 2009 - 2 - Controller may not have determined provisional rent in a case where the tenant defies the he was not willing to pay rent, here was a case where the tenant offered to pay rent as the Court determined and in such an event, the Rent Controller determined the provisional rent. It was for the landlord either to avail the facility or not. He had, in this case, chosen not to receive the benefit of the order and did not accept the tender. The matter was to rest there. He shall have no further complaint that the provisional rent could not have been determined. If according to the landlord, the denial of tenancy itself was a cause for ejectment if it ultimately is found that such denial was unjustified, it will be for him to establish in such a case before the Rent Controller at the time of arguments after the conclusion of evidence that the tenant was liable for ejectment, if law allowed him such a ruling. The landlord cannot succeed in revision against an order which was otherwise innocuous. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 30.04.2009 sanjeev