Civil Revision No. 5270 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 5270 of 2010 Date of Decision: 19.11.2010 Dr. Brij Pal Sukhija …Petitioner Versus Mahesh Kumar and Another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Sagar, Advocate for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Respondents/landlords claimed that Jeevan Bai wife of Hari Chand, their grand mother, was owner of the property, as described in the head note of the eviction petition. The ejectment of the tenant was sought on the ground that he is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.3.1994 at the rate of ` 500 per month. It was also stated that the tenant has not paid the house tax at the rate of 15% w.e.f. 1.3.1994. The Rent Controller, Ludhiana, vide impugned order dated 6.8.2010 (Annexure P1), assessed the rent provisionally and called upon the tenant to pay the rent w.e.f. 1.3.1994 till 31.8.2010 at the rate of ` 500 per month. The petitioner/tenant has taken a categoric stand before the Rent Controller that he has paid the rent upto February 2005. Civil Revision No. 5270 of 2010 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is improbable, unnatural and unconvincing that from the year 1994 till February 2005, the landlords would not initiate any proceedings for recovery of the arrears of rent. Learned counsel for the respondents/landlords has controverted this contention by submitting that mere assertion, on the part of the tenant that the rent was paid without receipt, cannot be taken into consideration. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that assessment of the provisional rent is interim in nature. Subject to the evidence, to be adduced by the parties, the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, can lateron determine the period for which the rent was not paid by the tenant. However, calling upon the tenant to pay rent w.e.f. 1.3.1994 to 31.8.2010, for a long period of 16 years, may be harsh. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 6.8.2010 (Annexure P1) is modified to the extent that the petitioner/tenant may pay the rent, at first instance, for the period commencing from February 2005 till 31.8.2010 along with the cost and interest, to be assessed by the Rent Controller. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance with the order dated 23.8.2010, passed by this Court, the said exercise has already been undertaken by the Rent Controller and the petitioner/tenant has paid the rent for the period from February 2005 till 31.8.2010 along with the interest and cost. That being so, the landlords are not precluded to urge before the Rent Controller that they are entitled to the rent from 1.3.1994 till February 2005. This question is Civil Revision No. 5270 of 2010 3 kept open, subject to evidence led by the parties and in case the Rent Controller, at the time of final adjudication of eviction petition, comes to the conclusion that the tenant is liable to pay the rent w.e.f. 1.3.1994 till February 2005, the petitioner will make the deficiency good, otherwise he will suffer conditional order, as per the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rakesh Wadhawan and Others v. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and Others AIR 2002 Supreme Court 2004. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents/landlords has submitted that since the rent, for a period of 16 years, is due, the direction be issued to the Rent Controller to conclude the eviction petition within a specific period. Learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection thereto. Accordingly, the Rent Controller is directed to conclude the eviction petition within a period of one year, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, after affording three effective opportunities, for leading evidence, to both the parties. With the observations made above, the present revision petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge November 19, 2010 “DK”