Vinod K. Sharma, J. (Oral):- This revision petition is directed against the order dated 6.10.2006 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana, vide which the provisional rent has been assessed at Rs.20,000/- per month w.e.f. 1.2.1997.

2. The respondent-landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for eviction of the petitioner from the shop situated in Chaura Bazar, Ludhiana, on the ground of non-payment of rent.

3. The petitioner claimed that he is landlord of the premises in dispute in pursuance of the purchase from the original owner by way of sale deeds dated 23.1.1996 and 11.7.1997. The first sale deed of half portion was executed in favour of the petitioner, whereas other half has been sold to the mother of the petitioner

4. The respondent-landlord claimed that the petitioner-tenant was in arrears of rent since 1.2.1997 and, therefore, liable to be evicted. The respondent-landlord also claimed that rate of rent was Rs.33,000/- (Rupees thirty three thousand only).

5. On notice having been issued, the suit was contested by raising a plea that the rate of rent was Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only), which stood paid.

6. The learned Rent Controller noticed that photocopy of licence deed placed on record shows rate of rent to be 33,000/- (Rupees thirty three thousand only).

7. The petitioner was unable to bring anything on record to rebut the same. However, learned Rent Controller chose not to give any opinion on the plea raised by the petitioner that the licence deed was a forged document and was not binding and, therefore, could not be basis to determine the rate of rent.

8. The learned Rent Controller was pleased to observe that the question whether the documents are valid or not is to be determined after the parties have led their evidence.

9. The learned Rent Controller assessed the provisional rent by taking into consideration the location of the shop, in Chaura Bazar, Ludhiana, main commercial centre of Ludhiana.

10. The learned Rent Controller has assessed the rate of rent at Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) per month and ordered that the same be paid w.e.f. 1.2.1997 along with interest @ 6% per annum along with costs of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only).

11. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently contends that licence deed is forged and fabricated document and in spite of application having been made before the learned Rent Controller, the original was not produced on record.

12. Thus, it is alleged that the impugned order cannot be sustained being based on forged document. The rent should be taken to be only Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) per month, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is tenant in the premises since 1995 which was, in fact, taken on rent by her husband to which she has succeeded after his death.

13. This plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner is vehemently opposed by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent on the plea that the. reading of the order would show that the learned Rent Controller prima facie accepted the licence deed to be a genuine document and has positively recorded that documents have been brought on record to show that the premises were rented out to the husband of the petitioner at a rent of Rs.33,000/- (Rupees thirty three thousand only) per month by way of lease deed. The learned Rent Controller also observed that the petitioner was already tenant in the premises before the purchase by the respondent-landlord and the rent was being paid to previous landlord.

14. On consideration of matter, I find that the learned Rent Controller has not accepted the version of either party and has assessed the provisional rent, keeping in view the location of the shop i.e. in the Chaura Bazar, Ludhiana, which would not fetch rent at the rate which is less than Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) per month. The rent a