IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4685 of 2007 Date of decision: 17th October, 2008 Patiala Distillers Manufacturers Ltd. and another … Petitioners Versus G.P. Sood and another … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Rent Controller had provisionally assessed the rent to be Rs.45,000/-, relying upon the lease deed between the parties. The impugned order is an order of interim nature. While exercising revisional jurisdiction, no interference is called for, as the order was based on sound reasons. It is further submitted that eviction petition has been finally decided and on the basis of evidence led by the parties, Rs.45,000/- has been determined to be the actual rent. Counsel for the petitioner states that even though the rent has been finally determined, the present petition has not become infructuous. Be that as it may, there is no merit in the present petition. Learned counsel has relied upon “Balwant Kaur and others v. Tilak Raj Gupta and others” 1986 (1) RCR 110, to say that the ‘rent will be increased’, is a condition, which is of penal nature. Counsel can urge so in a revision petition, in which the final order has been assailed. Civil Revision No.4685 of 2007 This contention is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. To similar effect is the judgment of “Bihari Lal Gokleney v. Ved Parkash and another”, 1979 (1) RCR 569. There is no merit in the present petition. Hence, the same is dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE October 17, 2008. rps 2