IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5771 of 2004 Date of decision:19.05.2009 Inderjit Kaur and others ...Petitioners versus Rajinder Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Bhupinder Singh Thind, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Chetan Slathia, Advocate for the respondent. ----- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The Civil Revision is against the order directing provisional assessment of rent made by the Rent Controller to be paid @ Rs.1250/- from 01.04.1995 to 30.04.1998 and from 01.11.2003 till date of the present petition along with interest and costs of Rs.500/-. 2. The objections which have been taken were that the rent had been paid upto 30.04.1998 in yet another Civil Revision and the said tender was still sub judice and a revision petition has been filed before this Court and it is pending in Civil Revision No.5040 of 2004. The factual rendering made by the Appellate Authority that the tenant had not paid rent from April 1995 to February 1998 could not be Civil Revision No.5771 of 2004 - 2 - entertained in revision and I have actually dismissed the Civil Revision No.5040 of 2004. The said contention cannot therefore avail of the tenant to contend that he had paid the rent during the period where the Rent Controller has assessed the rent as payable by the tenant. The rate of rent itself is not in dispute. The entitlement of the landlord to obtain rent cannot also be disputed. Although the tenant wants to contend that the petition itself was not maintainable, I have again held in the decision in Civil Revision No.5040 of 2004 making a pointed reference to the Full Bench ruling of this Court in Ajay Kashyap Versus Smt. Mohini Nijhawan-2004(1) RCR 349, that the petition was maintainable. The fixation of the provisional rent and the direction to pay such rent are therefore unassailable and the Civil Revision filed in 5771 of 2004 is consequently dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 19.05.2009 sanjeev