CR No.1406 of 2011 (O&M - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1406 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.04.2011 Gurmukh Singh and another . . .Petitioners Versus Kuldip Singh . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Ms.Reena Bains, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Perminder Singh , Advocate, for the respondent. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 27.1.2011 by which learned Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur has assessed the provisional rent to be paid by the tenant. In brief, the landlord sought ejectment of the tenant from the shop, inter alia, on the ground of arrears of rent. He filed an application for assessment of the provisional rent claiming it to be `1300/- per month w.e.f. 1.8.2003 along with Municipal Taxes till date. In reply to the application, it was alleged that Gian Kaur-mother of the landlord was receiving the rent. She had agreed to sell the demised premises but before the registration of sale deed she died. It was further alleged that in pursuance of the agreement to sell she had taken `60,000/- towards earnest money. The learned Court below after taking into account the case set up by both the parties, assessed the provisional rent @ `1000/- per month w.e.f. 1.8.2003 till the date of the petition i.e. 30.4.2010 for the period of 81 months amounting to `81,000/-, calculated the component of interest at `18,427/- and imposed a cost of `1500/-, total amounting to `1,00,927/-, which was ordered to be paid on 28.2.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, therefore, there was no CR No.1406 of 2011 (O&M - 2 - question of payment of rent much less the provisional rent. He has also submitted that earlier also the tenant had propounded an agreement to sell on the basis of which he filed a suit for specific performance against Gian Kaur which was dismissed by the Civil Court on 5.11.2003. Learned counsel for the petitioners has basically relied upon jamabandi (attached as Annexure P-4 on record) to allege that the land in dispute was owned by Teja Singh and not by the landlord but she has failed to connect the said land with the land in dispute as jamabandi pertains to Village Khawaspur whereas shop in dispute is situated within the Municipal Limits of Hoshiarpur. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition because the petitioners have failed to contradict prima facie the claim of the landlord on the basis of which provisional rent has been assessed. It is, however, made clear that since it is only a provisional assessment and it is yet to be found out as to what was the real rate of rent, period of rent for which the tenant was liable and also other allegations which have been made by the tenant on the basis of the evidence which is either led or ought to be led by him, hence, nothing observed herein shall influence the learned Rent Controller while deciding the main eviction petition on merits. With these observations, the present revision petition is dismissed though without any order as to costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) APRIL 20, 2011 JUDGE Vivek