(124) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 21.04.2026 HIRA SINGH ...Petitioner Vs.

MANMEET KAUR ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Roopak Bansal, Advocate with Ms. Hitika Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Munish Kumar, Advocate for the respondent.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral)

1. The present revision petition has been filed assailing the order dated 10.04.2026 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 06.03.2026 has been dismissed. Vide the said order dated 06.03.2026, the learned Rent Controller had made a provisional assessment of rent. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders passed by both the authorities below, has approached this Court seeking their setting aside in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in occupation of the demised premises as a tenant since the year 2016–

₹

17. At the inception of the tenancy, an amount of 4,00,000/- was paid to the respondent on 23.08.2016 as an interest-free security deposit. It is further submitted that a fresh rent agreement was executed between the parties on 25.02.2019, wherein it was mutually agreed that out of the monthly rent of ₹ ₹

8,000/-, a sum of 4,000/- would be adjusted towards the aforesaid security deposit, and the remaining 4,000/- would be paid by the petitioner to the respondent against proper receipt. Thereafter, on 05.10.2019, an agreement to sell was executed between the parties whereby the respondent agreed to sell 50% share in the suit property to the petitioner for a total sale consideration of ₹ ₹

89,00,000/-, against which an amount of 19,00,000/- was paid as earnest money. In furtherance thereof, the petitioner also instituted a suit for specific performance seeking enforcement of the said agreement. It is further contended that subsequently, on 05.02.2021, another agreement to sell was executed between the parties for the same sale consideration, pursuant to which the petitioner paid further amounts, thereby enhancing the total earnest ₹

money to 42,00,000/-. Meanwhile, the respondent instituted an eviction petition on the ground of alleged non-payment of rent, which was contested by the petitioner. The learned Rent Controller, vide order dated 06.03.2026, ₹

provisionally assessed the rent at 8,000/- per month. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority vide order dated 10.04.2026. Being dissatisfied with the concurrent findings of the authorities below, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that both the learned Rent Controller as well as the learned Appellate Authority have failed to take into consideration the terms and conditions of the rent agreement dated 25.02.2019 in its correct perspective. It is submitted that, as per the said agreement, out of the security deposit of 4,00,000/- already paid by the petitioner, a sum of 4,000/- per month was agreed to be adjusted towards the monthly rent. However, the said admitted contractual adjustment has not been duly factored in while determining the provisional rent. It is further contended that the petitioner has already paid a substantial amount of 42,00,000/- towards earnest money under the agreements to sell executed between the parties, and in view thereof, the liability to pay the provisionally assessed rent ought not to be enforced in favour of the respondent-landlady. It is urged that, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the amount so assessed deserves to be directed to be retained in Court rather than being disbursed to the respondent.

4. On the other hand, the respondent has appeared through learned counsel Mr. Munish Kumar, who has filed his power of attorney and opposed the petition. It is contended o