[319] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 08.09.2025 Anjali Foundation …Petitioner versus Anil Mehra ….Respondent Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Saksham Mahajan, Advocate and Ms. Shruti Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Parmanand Yadav, Advocate and Mr. Ambanshu Sahni, Advocate for the respondent.

****

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

[1] This is third revision petition filed by the tenant on the issue of assessment of provisional rent. Earlier tenant came before this Court, challenging order dated 16.03.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority, Gurugram, affirming order dated 25.02.2022. The revision petition was allowed on the limited issue regarding inclusion of rent for the period prior to December, 2018 being beyond pleadings.

[2] The operative part of the order passed by this Court reads as under:-

“10. In view of the aforesaid dictum at the time of assessing in excess or in deficient, the set off has to be granted at the time of final adjudication. In the present case, there are account statements on record relied upon by both the parties and the same are yet to be proved. In given circumstances, controller ought not have gone beyond pleadings while assessing provisional rent. Once landlord in the eviction petition, pleaded that the rent stands paid upto December, 2018, the Rent Controller ought not have assessed the provisional rent for the period prior to December, 2018.

11. In view of above, the impugned order is set aside with a direction to the Rent Controller to re-assess the rent taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties within period of 04 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.”

[3] Rent stands reassessed by the Rent Controller vide order dated 04.01.2025. Tenant again approached this Court by way of CR-374-2025. The counsel representing the tenant sought permission to withdraw the revision petition. The same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 21.01.2025. The tenant thereafter approached the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority passed the consent order dated 23.01.2025, which reads as under:-

“6. Be that as it may, during the course of hearing, learned counsel for appellant/tenant has submitted that he is not challenging the provisional order so far as quantum of amount is concerned, however impugned order does not reflect the factum of payment of provisional rent of Rs.2,85,25,140/-, which has already been paid by the tenant in March, 2022, meaning thereby that tenant has already paid the amount of money in excess of the amount so assessed vide impugned order dated 04.01.2025 and in such situation, the observation of learned Rent Controller, in para(s) no.8 & 9 thereof, to the effect that assessed provisional rent be paid not later than the next date i.e. 24.01.2025 and failure to comply with the same would result in the immediate eviction of the respondent (therein)/tenant, is apparently lacking in actual state of affairs obtaining in the matter and to that extent, impugned order reflects non-application of mind, with reference to the undisputed fact(s) on record.

7. On specific query to the learned counsel for land- lord/respondent herein, learned counsel has fairly conceded that amount of provisional rent to the extent of Rs.2,85,25,140/- stood tendered in the month of March, 2022 and there is no dispute about the said fact. Even though, learned counsel for landlord/respondent herein has submitted that order pertaining to the provisional rent ought to have included the period upto the passing of said order, but at the same time, learned counsel for landlord has fairly conceded that he is not impugning the order dated 04.01.2025 passed by learned Rent Controller by way of filing of appeal/cross-objection and instead, he intends to move an application before learned Rent Controller in this regard.

8. Since both sides are ad-idem to the effect that tenant has already tendered the amount of R