Civil Revision No.3558 of 2009 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3558 of 2009 Date of decision: July 2, 2009. Kirat Singh ...Petitioner(s) v. Akhara Braham Buta ...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 S.D. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Bindu Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioner impugns the order dated 21.6.2009 passed by the Rent Controller, Amritsar, assessing Rs.5375/- as the provisional monthly rent in respect of the building of Nutraj Restaurant and Aroma Hotel, situate at Queens Road, Amritsar. The aforesaid order has been passed on an application moved by the respondent-landlord – Akhara Braham Buta. The petitioner's contention is that in the year 1965 when the aforesaid restaurant-cum-hotel was taken on rent, he agreed to pay a sum of Rs.875/- per month, besides other user charges for various items like furniture, crockery, coffee machine, Piano-base, Microphone, Speakers, etc., Civil Revision No.3558 of 2009 -: 2 :- including Rs.500/- per month “for goodwill of running business”, i.e., Rs.5375/- in total. It is urged that the user charges for various articles or the premium on 'goodwill' to which the petitioner agreed to pay, are not the components of the rent for the 'premises', therefore, the learned Rent Controller has exceeded its jurisdiction in taking into consideration while assessing the provisional rent. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and considering the fact that the petitioner is said to have not paid the rent since December 1990, I am of the considered view that the impugned order does not call for any interference except to observe that the payment/deposit of the provisionally assessed amount of Rs.5375/- per month by the petitioner from December 1990 onwards shall be without prejudice to his right to contest the actual rental that he may be liable to pay. Suffice it to say that the plea, if taken by the petitioner, shall be gone into by the learned Rent Controller in accordance with law and payment of Rs.5375/- by the petitioner as provisionally assessed rent under the orders of the Rent Controller shall not be taken as an admission and/or acceptance of such rate of rent by him. As regards any mathematical mistake committed by the Rent Controller in calculations etc., the petitioner shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application for correction thereof. If the petitioner is held to have paid anything in excess of what he is liable to pay, the excess payment shall be adjusted against the future rent. Disposed of. July 02, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge