CR No. 5766 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CR No. 5766 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on January20,2011. Arun Sharma --Petitioner vs. Harbans Singh and others --Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Gorakh Nath,Advocate,for the petitioner Mr.Sanjay Gupta,Advocate,for the respondents Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 13.8.2010, passed by the learned Rent Controller, Mohali, by which he had assessed the provisional rent by calculating the same @ 20% on the prevailing rent of the previous year. The only agitation of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the lease deed (Ex.P-3) was executed on 28.1.2005 for a period of five years in which 5% annual increase was stipulated. According to that, the tenant was to vacate the demised premises on 31.12.2009 and at that time, prevailing rent was Rs.31,603/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had to pay 5% increase as he continues in occupation, but the Court had illegally assessed the increase of 20% CR No. 5766 of 2010 (O&M) 2 on the prevailing rent of the previous year by misinterpreting clause 4 of the lease deed (Ex.P3) which reads as under:- “4. That the lessee shall hand over the vacant possession of the premises on 31.12.2009 to the Lessors without requiring any notice. However, the lessee shall clear all the pending bills payment at the time of vacation, including water & electricity charges etc. as per actuals. Any proposal from the lessee to extend the lease period beyond this date may be made well in time so that the same is considered by the said date positively. Such a proposal for extension may be considered by mutual consent by the Lessor & lessee on such fresh terms and conditions as per the then market rent by getting a fresh deed registered. Any un- authorized use of the premises for any period beyond the above date of vacation, rent @ 20% increase on the prevailing rent for every one year period or part thereof will be paid” In reply, learned counsel for the respondent submits that as per Clause 4, the petitioner had to vacate the demised premises on 31.12.2009 without issuing any notice and to clear all the pending bills raised by any authority in respect of the demised premises. It further provides that the lessee could have approached the lessor for the purpose of extension of lease, which could have been decided by mutual consent after getting the fresh deed registered, otherwise, the possession of the lessor was considered to be unauthorized and he was liable to pay the rent @ 20% increase on the prevailing rent for every one year period or part thereof. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance. I am of the view that there is CR No. 5766 of 2010 (O&M) 3 no error in the impugned order passed by the learned Rent Controller, because the lessee/petitioner did not make a proposal to the lessor for the purpose of getting a fresh deed registered after the expiry of the earlier lease, therefore, he continued in possession as unauthorized occupant for which he is liable to pay 20% increase on the prevailing rent of the previous year. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed, but without any order as to costs. January 20,2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge