Civil Revision No.219 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.219 of 2009 Date of decision: 16.01.2009 Subodh Rajan Mallik .............. Petitioner Vs. Prem Singh and another .............Respondents Present: Mr. Rajneesh Chadwal, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? No -.- K.KANNAN, J 1. The petitioner comes on revision petition against an order directing provisional assessment of rent @ Rs.1100/- w.e.f. 1.1.2004. It is the definite averment of the landlord in the petition that the rent has not been paid by the tenant since 1.1.2004. 2. It is the contention of the tenant that he has paid the rent upto June, 2006 and there are arrears that have been accumulated only from the subsequent periods. There is no proof that the tenant has made any payment of rent subsequent to 01.01.2004. At the preliminary stage when the Court has to pass the order, there cannot be a roving enquiry and the Court will act on the documents available. It is the duty of the tenant to secure receipts for the payment of rent. If he has not obtained the receipts from landlord, he has to take the consequence for his own lapses. The order which is passed is merely provisional and it does not conclude the rights of the parties. It is always open to the tenant to prove at the time of regular trial that he has paid the rent for the subsequent periods also. There is nothing illegal or improper about the order passed by the learned Rent Controller. Civil Revision No.219 of 2009 -2- 3. It is strenuously pleaded by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the amount of Rs.50,000/-, which is directed to be paid will be too difficult for a poor tailor to make. Although the matter of grant of time is essentially discretionary and would not admit any interference in revision, in view of alleged impoverishment of the tenant that is pleaded by the counsel for the revision petitioner, I make the only modification to the order of learned Rent Controller that instead of one month specified in the order, it shall be read as three months. Subject to the above, revision petition is disposed of. Order dasti. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 16, 2009 Pankaj*