CIVIL REVISION NO.617 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 31, 2008 Jeevan Lal .....Petitioner VERSUS Veena Rani and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Vivek Saslathia, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Against the order passed by the Rent Controller, Amritsar, assessing provisional rent at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month and directing payment thereof with effect from February 2006 uptil January 2007, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. Respondent No.2, Sneh Lata, filed an application before the Rent Controller, praying for assessment of the rent provisionally. The rent claimed is @ Rs.2,000/- per month with effect from February 2006. The petitioner filed a reply, denying that rent is due with effect from February 2006. After having given the background CIVIL REVISION NO.617 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: that the property in question was taken on rent at Rs.500/- per month in the year 1992, it is conceded that in the year 2005, the rent was increased from Rs.1500/- to Rs.2,000/-. It is further pleaded that all rent due till April 2007 was paid by the petitioner regularly through cheques and as such, contested the plea raised by the respondents in regard to arrears of rent as claimed. As already noticed, the respondents had claimed arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month from February 2006. The Rent Controller came to conclude that the rent was due from February 2006 uptil January 2007 and as such, gave time to the petitioner till 1.2.2008 to tender the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the Rent Controller has not taken into consideration the evidence showing payment of rent by way of cheques and, thus, the impugned order suffers from material irregularities in not taking into consideration relevant material. Learned counsel would draw my attention to Annexures P-3 and P-4, which are statement of bank account of the petitioner and the counter file of the cheque slips, showing payment of amount by way of cheques to the respondent- Veena Rani. Annexure P-3 is a photostat copy of the statement of bank account, which contains some entries pertaining to 30.8.2006 in the name of Veena regarding withdrawal of cheques. It appears that photostat copy of the bank statement was enclosed by the petitioner with his reply before the Rent Controller. There are some entries in this statement pertaining to the month of April 2007 containing name of Veena Rani etc. On the basis of these Annexures read with CIVIL REVISION NO.617 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: Annexure P-4, it is urged that the payment of rent would stand established showing that there was no arrears of rent payable by the petitioner. I have my doubts if Annexure P-4 can be any relevant evidence in regard to payment of rent by the petitioner. Annexure P-4 is a self copy of a cheque book where entries in regard to different cheques are noted for one's own information. It is not possible to say that this would be a proof of any payment of rent. Some isolated entries made in Annexure P-3, to which reference has been made, prima-facie are not enough to show that rent had been regularly paid from February 2006 to January 2007. No doubt, the Rent Controller would have been better advised to take into consideration the material that was placed before him while making an assessment of provisional rent or to determine the arrears but photostat copy of the statement of bank account would not be an evidence of a relevance or assurance to indicate payment of rent in itself. Since assessment only in regard to the arrears of rent has provisionally been made and the rate of rent is not in dispute, the case may not call for any interference at this interlocutory stage. The petitioner would have an ample opportunity to establish payment of rent and to get benefit thereof during the course of proceedings. I am, thus, not inclined to interfere with this order in view of the reasons mentioned above. The petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. January 31 ,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE CIVIL REVISION NO.617 OF 2008 :{ 4 }: