(245) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-1611-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 12.08.2025 Surinder Pal Verma and another ...Petitioner(s) Versus Ravi Dutt ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Ms. Monika Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioners. * * * * VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioners-revisionists have filed this revision petition claiming themselves to be landlords of the premises in dispute on the ground that the respondent-tenant is in arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 1,07,807/- upto September, 2017. He is creating nuisance. The premises is required for having the personal necessity. 2. The ejectment petition was contested by the respondent-tenant by filing written reply and during the pendency of the ejectment petition, learned Rent Controller vide order dated 02.01.2025 has opined that since the respondent-tenant has paid the rent from 01.09.2007 to 31.12.2024 to the tune of Rs. 5,57,683/-, there is no need to assess the rent as rent has been paid as per rent note. 3. The order was challenged in appeal before the Appellate Authority, Panchkula. The Appellate Authority finding no merits in the claim of the petitioners dismissed the appeal vide impugned order dated 21.02.2025. 4. Aggrieved by the orders so passed, the present revision petition has been filed. AMODH SHARMA 2025.08.13 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CR-1611-2025 (O&M) -2- 5. Both the authorities below have recorded a finding that when the rent was paid up-to-date as per the rent note, there is no need for provisional assessment of the rent and the Appellate Authority has categorically recorded a finding that it is not a petition under Section 4 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. A perusal of the impugned order shows that there is no illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority. The findings recorded by the Appellate Authority are well reasoned. No jurisdictional error has been committed as provisional assessment of rent is only for the purposes of tendering the rent on first date of hearing in order to avoid ejectment. When rent upto 31.12.2024 has already been paid as per rent note executed between the parties, the validity of the tender made would be adjudged at the time of final disposal of the ejectment petition and if it is found that tender of rent is short, then as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rakesh Wadhawan and others Vs M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and others, 2002 (5) SCC 440, the respondent-tenant would be asked to make good deficiency in tender. In this case, there is no question of assessing fair rent. Only provisional rent was required to be assessed by the learned Rent Controller on the first date of hearing as per Rakesh Wadhawan’s case (supra) and both the Courts below have rightly concluded that when the rent has been paid up-to-date, there is no need for provisional assessment of the rent. 6. As such, finding no perversity in the order so passed, the revision petition is dismissed. (VIRINDER AGGARWAL) JUDGE 12.08.2025 Amodh Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No AMODH SHARMA 2025.08.13 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement