In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CR No. 520 of 2011 (O&M) Decided on January 31,2011. Amandeep Singh --Petitioner vs. Raminder Kaur --Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.S.S.Tiwana,Advocate, for the petitioner Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 18.12.2010 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar, by which provisional rent has been assessed and the petitioner has been ordered to make the payment from 1.2.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the shop in dispute once owned by Manjit Sngh was sold by him to the landlord Raminder Kaur, who is claiming the rent at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month. It is submitted that he is in possession of the shop in dispute by virtue of mortgage deed dated 27.5.2003, allegedly executed by Manjit Singh, who had later on executed a rent agreement as well. But these documents which were filed along-with the written statement C.R.No.520 of 2011 (O&M) -2- have not been considered at the time of assessment of the provisional rent. No doubt, there is no reference of these documents in the impugned order, but the same are appreciated by this Court from which it is not clear as to whether the shop No.10 (demised premises), which is bounded as East: property of the defendant Manjit Singh; West: property of the defendant Manjit Singh; North: property of the defendant Manjit Singh and South: Gali/Road, is the same property which is alleged to have been mortgaged by Manjit Singh to the petitioner, because in the mortgage deed, there is no shop number mentioned and the boundary of that property is altogether different. Moreover, in the rent agreement, no date is given. The learned Rent Controller, while assessing the provisional rent, has also observed that though the petitioner has claimed that he has made the payment of rent to Manjit Singh up to February,2009, yet, no receipt of the said amount has been placed on record to indicate that the rate of rent was Rs. 1000/-per month. and not Rs.3000/- per month. In view of the above, I do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the learned Rent Controller and as such, this revision petition is hereby dismissed. January 31,2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge