IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2323 of 2008 Date of decision: April 23, 2008. Krishan Kumar Garg ...Petitioner(s) v. Rajiv Chanana ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 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. Present: Shri Gaurav Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): Notice of motion. Shri Vishal Garg, Advocate (assisting counsel to Shri Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate) accepts notice on behalf of the caveator- respondent. Heard S/Shri Gaurav Chopra, Advocate, and Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate, Learned Counsel for the parties. This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 22.1.2008 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh whereby the petitioner – tenant has been directed to pay a provisional rent @ Rs.4600/- to the extent of 1/3rd share of the premises to the respondent – alleged landlord. The petitioner – tenant's primary contention is that there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as the subject premises was rented out to him by Surinder Kumar Nagpal @ Rs.14000/- per month with effect from 1.9.2003 and since then he has been regularly paying rent to his landlord. On the other hand, the respondent – alleged landlord is harping upon a registered sale deed dated 9.6.2005 whereby 1/3rd share is stated to have been purchased by him from Sanjiv Kumar Nagpal – brother of Surinder Kumar Nagpal from whom the petitioner claims to have taken the premises on rent. From the various documents on record, prima-facie, it appears that there is some inter se dispute between the respondent and Sanjiv Kumar Nagpal. The Rent Controller, vide his impugned order, has observed that since as per the petitioner's own case, he is paying rent @ Rs.14,000/- per month and the respondent claims himself to be owner of the subject premises to the extent of 1/3rd share only, he, at the best, can claim 1/3rd share of the total rent, i.e., Rs.4600/- per month. The said amount has accordingly been assessed as provisional rent and the petitioner has been directed to pay the same to the respondent with effect from 9.6.2005. It is, however, not in dispute that the petitioner in his written statement has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and does not admit the respondent to be his landlord. In these circumstances, in order to protect the right of both the parties, the impugned order dated 22.1.2008 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall tender the arrears of rent @ Rs.4600/- per month, as directed by the Rent Controller, however, the same shall be deposited within a period of two months in the court of Rent Controller, Chandigarh. The learned Rent Controller shall frame a preliminary issue as to whether or not there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The release of the arrears of rent, to be deposited by the petitioner, shall depend upon the final outcome of the said issue. Needless to say that the petitioner shall continue depositing the amount of Rs.4600/- per month on or before the 10th day of every calender month and if allowed or permitted by the Rent Controller, he may deduct the said amount out of the total rent which he has claimed to have paid/is paying to Surender Kumar Nagpal. Disposed of. April 23, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge