Civil Revision No. 1795 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1795 of 2010 Date of decision : 19.3.2010 Urvinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus Treco Consultancy Service Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. H.P.S. Kochhar, Advocate for the petitioner. S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioner-tenant has a grievance with the validity of the provisional rent etc. assessed by the learned Rent Controller in accord with the law laid down by the Apex Court in Rakesh Wadhawan Vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, AIR 2002 SC 2004. The plea raised is that the learned Rent Controller had not noticed certain material obtaining on the record to prove that the rate of rent was much lesser than that came to be assessed by the learned Rent Controller. It is apparent, from a perusal of para 2 of the impugned order, that the petitioner-tenant had neither disputed relationship of landlord- tenant nor disputed the rate of rent and the period of which he was in arrears thereof. The relevant observations made by the learned Rent Controller, as contained in para 2, are extracted hereunder in entirety. The relevant portion has been underlined for facility of reference:- “2. The petitioner has contended that the respondent is a tenant in Cabins No.32 and 33, Second Floor of SCO No.2443-44, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh and the presently Civil Revision No. 1795 of 2010 -2- monthly water charges which he has not paid since 01.05.2008 inspite of repeated requests. On the other hand, the respondent has neither disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties nor disputed the rate of rent as well as the period of arrears of rent. I called upon the learned counsel to indicate whether the above observations made by the learned Rent Controller, which are presently described by the learned counsel to be factually incorrect, had been brought to the notice of the learned Rent Controller. He informs that the plea for reassessment had indeed been made by means of an application. He took me through that application which is available on record as Annexure P-7. However, there is nothing in the course thereof wherein the petitioner-tenant may have averred that the above observations made by the learned Rent Controller were factually inaccurate. In the course of Annexure P-7, the petitioner-tenant did call upon the learned Rent Controller to re-assess the provisional rent but the basis thereof was that he is not liable to pay house tax or electricity charges which were payable by the landlord. It is one thing to deny liability pay the house tax or electricity charges and it is quite another thing to aver that rate of rent assessed had indeed been disputed before the learned Rent Controller are the observations recoded by the Controller qua that part of the fact being beyond the pale of controversy was factually incorrect. The petition shall stand dismissed accordingly. If the petitioner is so inclined, he may raise the relevant averment before the learned Rent Controller and, if the reception thereof is otherwise allowable by law, the learned Rent Controller shall adjudicate upon it. It may be made clear that making of these observations do not authorise compulsive Civil Revision No. 1795 of 2010 -3- reception of any further plea in the context. If any plea to the above effect comes to be filed, learned Rent Controller shall adjudicate upon it, completely unfazed by the fact of observations noticed above. While adjudicating upon it, he shall obviously also record a finding on valid reception or maintainability thereof. Disposed of accordingly. March 19, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE