JUDGMENT

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

By this common order, two civil revision petitions, the details of which have been given in the heading of this order, are being decided as both the petitions have been filed by the same landlord but against the different tenants.

2. Present revision petitions have been filed challenging the order dated 11.04.2023 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Appellate Authority vide which the order dated 22.03.2023 passed by the Rent Controller, has been set aside.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that by the impugned order dated 11.04.2023 (Annexure P-6), the Appellant Authority under the Rent Control Act has set aside a reasoned order dated 22.03.2023 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Rent Controller by which, the provisional rent was assessed @ Rs.2,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once there was a receipt shown for the rent of Rs.2,000/- per month, the same could not have been ignored by the Appellate Authority especially when the same had already been accepted by the Rent Controller.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in any case, by the impugned order dated 11.04.2023, the case was remanded back by the Appellate Authority to the Rent Controller to assess the rent afresh, hence, the direction could not have been given to assess the rent at a particular rate of Rs.500/- per month.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that in the present case, the receipts of rent of Rs.2,000/- per month which were being relied by the landlord, were disputed to be forged one and the signatures concededly on the said slip did not match to that of the tenant. It has been further argued by learned counsel for the respondents that they have already paid the rent by way of money order transfer @ Rs.500/- per month which has already been accepted by the landlord without raising any objection hence, the said fact which was ignored by the Rent Controller while assessing the rent @ Rs.2,000/- per month, has rightly been considered by the Appellate Authority to assess the rent @ Rs.500/- per month.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

7. The only dispute in the present petitions is that as to whether, the rent receipts which were being relied upon by the landlord showing the rent to be @ Rs.2,000/- per month is to be taken into account for assessing the provisional rent or the amount of rent i.e. @ Rs.500/- per month which have been deposited by the tenants by way of money order which amount was duly accepted by the landlord, is to be taken into account for assessing the provisional rent.

8. It may be noticed that the receipts which have been produced by the landlord in his favour showing the rent @ Rs.2,000/- per month, the same is being claimed as forged and signatures on the said receipt are being disputed but with regard to the deposit of the rent by the tenants by way of money order, which is Rs.500/- per month, has been duly received by the landlord and that too without raising any objection.

9. Keeping in view the said fact, the landlord is claiming the assessment of rent on the basis of a receipt which is being claimed to be forged whereas, the tenants are claiming the assessment of rent on the basis of the rent deposited by them through money order, which has been accepted by the landlord hence, there is no infirmity in the view of the Appellate Authority in the impugned order.

10. Further in the present case, the trial Court accepted the version of the landlord without realizing that rent receipts are being claimed to be forged whereas, the deposit of the rent by money order was not even being disputed by the landlord. Hence