CR No.3343 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.3343 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 2.11.2011 Asha Gupta ......Petitioner(s) Versus Wg. Cdr. Shashank Sharma and anr. ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate for the respondents. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) Vide impugned order dated 6.5.2011, the Rent Controller, Gurgaon, ordered the petitioner to make the payment of house tax @ ` 6586/- per month to the respondent-landlord. The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner to challenge the aforesaid order. On 19.5.2011, noticing the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, the following order was passed: “Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the eviction petition has been filed under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 [for short “the Act”] on the ground of arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.09.2010 and house tax since June 2008. He submits that on 15.02.2011, the learned Rent Controller had assessed the provisional rent including interest and costs in which the component of house tax was not included. However, the learned Rent Controller had heard the arguments on the point as to whether the CR No.3343 of 2011 (O&M) 2 house tax is to be paid by the tenant or not and in terms of a notice of assessment of house tax @ Rs.6,586/- per annum and the legal notice of the Advocate of the landlord dated 22.12.2010, the tenant has been made liable to pay the house tax on 24.5.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that firstly there has been no dispute between the parties with regard to house tax as there was no issue. Secondly, there was no occasion for the learned Rent Controller to assess the house tax separately after the assessment of the provisional rent which was already tendered. Thirdly, the house tax is only proposed and has not been imposed and fourthly and lastly in terms of second proviso to Section 8 of the Act, the landlord has to demand the house tax, whereas in the legal notice no specific amount has been demanded from the date of notice. Notice of motion for 02.06.2011. In the meantime, the payment of house tax by the petitioner/tenant shall remain stayed.” This revision petition was admitted and ordered to be heard within one year vide order dated 18.8.2011. The respondent-landlord filed CM No.23570-CII of 2011 seeking vacation of the aforesaid ex parte stay order. However, noticing the fact that the impugned order is an interim order of the Rent Controller, this Court passed the following order on 27.9.2011. “Instead of raising arguments on the basis of application filed, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the instant revision petition which has been filed against the provisional assessment of rent by the Rent Controller is not maintainable, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of CR No.3343 of 2011 (O&M) 3 Harjit Singh Uppal v. Anup Bansal, JT 2011 (6) SC 236.” Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has put in appearance and tried to defend the petition on merits. However, he could not dispute the proposition of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment which reads thus: "Section 15(1) (b) of the 1949 Rent Act provides, to a person aggrieved by an order passed by the Rent Controller, a remedy of appeal. The Section provides for limitation for filing an appeal from that order and also the forum to which such appeal would lie. The provision, for maintaining the appeal, does not make any difference between the final order and interlocutory order passed by the Rent Controller in the proceedings under the 1949 Rent Act. There is no specific provision in the Section that if a party aggrieved by an interlocutory order passed by the Rent Controller does not challenge that order in appeal immediately, though provided, and waits for the final outcome, whether in the appeal challenging the final order of the Rent Controller, the correctness of the interlocutory order from which an appeal lay could or could not be challenged in the appeal from the final order." Faced with the aforesaid situation, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has sought to withdraw the instant revision petition with liberty to challenge the impugned order by seeking appropriate remedy before the Appellate Authority. Prayer is allowed. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was pursuing his remedy against the impugned order before this Court bona fidely, the question of limitation will not be raised against him in case he chooses to CR No.3343 of 2011 (O&M) 4 file an appeal before the Appellate Authority against the impugned order within two weeks from today. This revision petition is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty. November 2, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE