IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.7024 of 2010 Date of Decision: 27.10.2010 Nagarmal. ....... Petitioner. Versus R.D.Mittal. ....... Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Shri P.K.Kukreja, Advocate for the petitioner. .... Mahesh Grover,J. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner,I am of the opinion that no legal infirmity has been committed by the Rent Controller. The provisional rent assessed is always subject to the rights of the parties which shall be determined at the final stage. At this stage, in the revisional jurisdiction, merely because provisonal rent has been assessed in a manner which is not suitable to the petitioner, this Court cannot interfere, more-so when there is no illegality in the impugned order. Dismissed. However, it is directed that if an application for extension in the time to deposit the provisional rent is made by the petitioner,then the Rent Controller will consider the same sympathetically in the backdrop of the facts of the case. October 27,2010 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge