Civil Revision No.2733 of 2009 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2733 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: July 01, 2009. Liao Ling Yang ...Petitioner(s) v. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Satish Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with Shri Divanshu Jain, Advocate for the respondent. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioner is aggrieved at the order dated 11.4.2009 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh whereby the rent, payable by the petitioner-tenant, has been provisionally assessed. Previously also, there were eviction proceedings initiated against the petitioner which culminated into a compromise and in terms whereof this Court vide its order dated 30.4.1997 disposed of the Civil Revision No.3926 of 1996. The said order contains and refers to statement made by the petitioner before this Court to the effect that if the landlord Civil Revision No.2733 of 2009 -: 2 :- agrees to the lease period of six years, he was willing to pay rent @ Rs.20,000/- per month effect from 1.4.1997 subject to deduction of income tax, if any, and that he would “increase the rent by 15% after every two years”. The above statement was accepted by the landlord and the revision petition was accordingly disposed of in those terms. In the present eviction proceedings, while the respondent- landlord claims that the the monthly rent is entitled to be increased by 15% after every two years even after expiry of the lease period, as held by this Court in a catena of judgments as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V. Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal, (1979)4 SCC 214, the petitioner- tenant asserts that after expiry of the lease period of 6 years, he has become a statutory tenant and is not bound by his statement made before this Court regarding increase in the rent by 15% after every two years. The above- noticed precise issue is yet to be gone into by the Rent Controller and it may not be desirable or expedient for this Court to express any views in relation thereto at this stage. The learned Rent Controller, however, vide the impugned order has held the petitioner liable to pay rent with 15% increase after every two years. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order except to observe that the petitioner may deposit the arrears of rent with the Rent Controller as per the order dated 11.4.2009 without prejudice to his legal rights. Suffice it to say that if the petitioner's objection is finally accepted by the Rent Controller, the excess payment, if any, made by him to the Civil Revision No.2733 of 2009 -: 3 :- landlord-respondent shall be liable to be adjusted against future rent. Dismissed. July 01, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge