IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.711 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:31.01.2011 Joy Manchanda . . .Petitioner Versus Sanjay Prabhakar . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL) CM No.2862 & 2863-CII-2011 Applications are allowed as prayed for. CR No.711 of 2011 This revision petition is directed against order passed by the Rent Controller, Gurgaon dated 07.1.2011 by which provisional rent has been fixed. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that at the time of assessment of the provisional rent, no opportunity was given to the petitioner to setup his case in defence. From the reading of the zimini orders, which have been reproduced by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the petition at page No.11 and 12, I have found that learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant/petitioner herein on 24.12.2010, had submitted that he is ready to tender the rent. Thereafter the case was adjourned for tendering the rent and for filing reply for 05.01.2011. On the said date, neither the rent was tendered nor reply was filed rather date was requested and ultimately the case was adjourned for 07.01.2011 for tendering of rent and reply. On the said date, when the impugned order was passed, the Court had no alternative left but to assess the provisional rent as per the averments made in the petition as the defendant/petitioner herein had failed to setup his case in defence despite the opportunities granted to him. In view thereof, I do not find any merit in the revision petition and as such the same is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) January 31, 2011 JUDGE vivek