Civil Revision No. 4983 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 4983 of 2010 Date of Decision: 19.11.2010 Budh Parkash Tayal …Petitioner Versus Naresh Yadav …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Sandeep Chhabra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The Rent Controller, Faridabad, relying upon the house tax assessment register, had assessed the rent as ` 4,000 per month provisionally, vide order dated 28.7.2010 (Annexure P1). This Court, on 10.8.2010, has passed the following order: “...Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Rent Controller, Faridabad, has relied upon an entry in the house tax record for the year 2008-09, where initially the assessment of the rent was determined as Rs.16,000/- for four shops. Learned Counsel further submits that on the basis of the house tax record, the provisional rent has been determined as Rs.4000/- per month, whereas the Civil Revision No. 4983 of 2010 2 tenant had taken a specific stand that initially the rent was Rs.200/- per month and lateron it was enhanced to Rs.400/- per month. Issue notice of motion for 17.9.2010. In the meanwhile, the petitioner may deposit the provisional rent, at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month only for the period specified in the impugned order...” Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that qua the adjoining shops, which are owned by brother of the respondent/landlord, the rent was also assessed provisionally as ` 4,000 per month, relying upon the house tax assessment register. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order, so passed qua the said shops, was made subject matter of revision petitions viz. Civil Revision No. 4378 of 2009 titled as “Naveen Kumar v. Mahender Singh Yadav”, Civil Revision No. 4359 of 2009 titled as “Ajay Kumar Bhardwaj v. Mahender Singh Yadav” and Civil Revision No. 4381 of 2009 titled as “Gian Chand v. Mahender Singh Yadav”, which were dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.2.2010. It is further submitted that Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 8746-8748 of 2010 was filed against the order dated 15.2.2010 and the same was also dismissed, by the Hon'ble Apex Court, vide order dated 1.4.2010. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the reasoning given qua the adjoining shops, by the Rent Controller, has been upheld by this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court, therefore, this Court cannot record a different note, in the present revision petition. Civil Revision No. 4983 of 2010 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the shops, owned by brother of the respondent/landlord, are in the Main Bazaar, whereas the shop, which is in possession of the petitioner/tenant, is inside the street. Even though it may make difference but the Rent Controller, Faridabad, had provisionally assessed the rent, relying upon the house tax assessment register. This argument was also followed qua the other shops and the reasoning propounded by the Rent Controller has been upheld upto the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, it will not be appropriate to record a different reasoning by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the petitioner is permitted to lead evidence, he can prove that the entries, made in the house tax assessment register, do not reflect the market rent and the actual rent, which is payable by the tenant/petitioner. The impugned order (Annexure P1), whereby the rent was assessed provisionally, is interim in nature. Subject to the evidence, to be adduced by the parties, the Rent Controller may vary the quantum of the rent and in case any excess is paid by the petitioner/tenant, same can be adjusted. Similarly, the deficiency, if any, can be made good lateron. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge November 19, 2010 “DK”