Civil Revision No.6210 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6210 of 2008 Date of decision:08.02.2010. Jawaharlal ...Petitioner Versus Mohan Lal …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. It is beyond the pale of controversy that the provisionally assessed rent had been paid by the respondent – tenant on the first date of hearing. It is only on the conclusion of the trial and in the judgment on merits that the learned Rent Controller held that certain amount of interest was payable by the respondent – tenant on the arrears of rent. It was directed that the amount of interest shall be paid within one month from the date of the judgment, i.e. 19.04.2007. The respondent – tenant did not pay it up on that date and applied for extension of time. The plea came to be allowed by the learned Rent Controller. The validity of that order is under challenge in the petition before this Court. Shri Rajinder Goyal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, relies upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Rakesh Wadhawan V. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation AIR 2002 SC 2004 to argue in favour of the invalidation of the impugned order. Civil Revision No.6210 of 2008 -2- The plea merely deserves to be noticed to be discarded. That was a case in which the Apex Court was dealing with a matter pertaining to the payment of the provisionally assessed rent etc. on the first date of hearing. It was certainly not a case wherein the Rent Controller had quantified the amount payable by the tenant as interest on the arrears of rent, while disposing of the main petition itself. The judgment in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra) is obviously not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. There is nothing in the Rent Legislation or otherwise which could justify the invalidation of the impugned order, particularly when it is common ground that the initially assessed provisional rent had been duly paid on the first date of hearing. It would require pertinent notice in the context that the respondent – tenant had raised a plea that the Clerk of his learned counsel did not intimate the liability to him in time. In support of that averment, the respondent had produced the photocopy of the brief and photocopy of the entries dated 19.04.2007 in the law diary of the learned counsel. (“Applicant has also produced photocopy of cover of brief, photocopy of entries dated 19.04.2007 of diary. Photocopies of entries of diary and entries made on cover of brief corroborate stand of applicant”). The learned Rent Controller was, thus, justified in placing reliance upon that part of the evidence to grant extension of time. The petition is held to be devoid of force and is ordered to be dismissed. February 08, 2010 (S.D.ANAND) vinod* JUDGE