Civil Revision No.4477 of 2010 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4477 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: September 10, 2010. Manpreet Kaur ...Petitioner(s) v. Ms. Navdeep Kaur ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri TPS Tung, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Shri B.B. Bagga, Advocate, for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): The present revision petition has been directed against the order dated 12.3.2010 passed by the Rent Controller whereby he assessed Rs.4,000/- as the provisional rent to be paid by the petitioner-tenant for period commencing from 1.9.2009 till March, 2010, along with interst @ 6% per annum and the costs of Rs.500/-. The Rent Controller in the impugned order had fixed 22.4.2010 as a date for tender of the amount of rent. On 22.4.2010, petitioner made the following statement before the Rent Controller:- “I have paid the rent from 1.9.2009 to 28.2.2010, through cheques and the same were deposited in the account of the petitioner i.e. A/c No.SB108, Punjab and Sind Bank, Sector 42- B, Chandigarh. The rent has been deposited at the rate of Civil Revision No.4477 of 2010 -: 2 :- Rs.4,000/- p.m. Today I am paying the rent from 1.3.2010 to 30.4.2010 at the rate of Rs.4000/- per month i.e., Rs.8000/- along with Rs.100 as interest and Rs.500/- as cost and the same is presented/tendered in the Court.” The Rent Controller also recorded the statement of the Counsel for the landlord. The same reads as under:- “Balance/arrears of rent upto 1.12.2009 along with interest is Rs.97,190/- and thereafter at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month is due that is Rs.16,000/- out of Rs.8,000/- has been receied. Rs.100/- has been received as interest and the remaining interest has not been paid. Cost of Rs.500/- has been received. The above mentioned amount of Rs.8600/- has been received under protest.” In the present revision petition, a prayer has been made that the petitioner had already paid rent for the period from 1.9.2009 to 28.2.2010 by account payee cheque, which was duly paid in the account of the landlord. A statement of bank has been attached as Annexure P-4 to contend that the account payee cheques have been encashed and credited in the account of the landlord. On July 21, 2010, this Court noted the contention of the Counsel for the petitioner, that the rent for the period from September, 2009 to February, 2010 has been paid vide account payee cheques and ordered that the petitioner may deposit the provisional amount assessed by the Rent Controller, Mohali, except for the six months period for which account payee cheques have been encashed. Counsel appearing for the respondent has made following two submissions. It is urged that the first date for deposit of the provisional rent fixed by the Rent Controller was 22.4.2010. The petitioner approached this Court in July 2010. In case, petitioner was aggrieved against the order of Civil Revision No.4477 of 2010 -: 3 :- the Rent Controller dated 12.3.2010, he ought to have approached this Court before that date or otherwise, he ought to have deposited the amount as assessed by the Rent Controller and later would have prayed that amount paid in excess be adjusted or refunded. Counsel submits that this course was not adopted by the petitioner-tenant. Counsel for the respondent has referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Rakesh Wadhawan's case, interpreted by a Division Bench of this Court in Rajan alias Raj Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar, 2010(1) RCR (Rent) 386 Counsel for the respondent has further stated that even the payment made by cheque purportedly for the relevant period, does not relate to the period commencing from 1st September, 2009 till March, 2010, for which the order of provisional assessment was passed and the same (payment by cheque) was towards the earlier rent due. Counsel for the respondent states that in para 2 of the eviction petition, details of rent have been given. After hearing Counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that no interference is warranted in the present revision petition and the same is dismissed. However,the Rent Controller shall compute and calculate the rent due and deduct the amount already paid before the date of tender and shall also consider the validity of tender made, in consonance with the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rakesh Wadhawan's case, as interpreted by a Division Bench of this Court in Raj Kumar's case (supra) and thereafter act according to the provisions of law. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] September 10, 2010. Judge kadyan