IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6262 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 29.10.2009 Ravi Kumar .....Petitioner versus Santosh Rani .....Respondent Civil Revision No.6263 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 29.10.2009 Ashok Mehta .....Petitioner versus Santosh Rani .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate, for the petitioners. -.- 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? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of Civil Revision Nos.6262 of 2009 and 6263 of 2009 which are directed by the tenants against the order dated 29.9.2009 passed by the Rent Controller, Bathinda, whereby the provisional rent in respect of two different shops let out by the same landlord to the petitioners, has been assessed and they have been directed to pay the arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.12.2004. C.R. No.6262 of 2009 (O&M) 2 The petitioner-tenants have two fold grievance. Firstly, it is urged that as per the entries made in the records of the Municipal Corporation, Bathinda, the rental value of the shops in dispute is Rs.650/- each per month and not Rs.1800/- or Rs.1500/- per month respectively, as claimed by the respondent-landlord. Secondly, the petitioners claim to have paid the rent upto April, 2008. It is well settled that the provisional rent is to be assessed by the Rent Controller on the basis of prima-facie evidence on record. The Rent Controller, Bathinda, has observed that though the petitioners have alleged that the rent notes are forged and fabricated documents but their plea is a matter of evidence and the Rent Notes, at this stage, cannot be taken as forged documents. The petitioners have produced no rent receipts for the period w.e.f. December, 2004 to April, 2008 to suggest payment of rent for that period. In this way, no error has been committed by the Rent Controller, Batinda, while assessing the provisional rent. Suffice it to say that if it is proved that the rent notes relied upon by the respondent are forged and fabricated documents, as alleged by the petitioners and if the petitioners are found to have paid the excess rent, they shall be entitled to the refund of the excess amount or its adjustment against the future rent. With this observation, the revision petitions are disposed of. 29-10-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE