JUDGMENT
M.M. Kumar, J.
1. This petition challenges order dated 8.4.2004 passed by the Rent Controller, Union Territory, Chandigarh. The Kent Controller has assessed the provisional rate of rent which is required to be deposited by the tenant-petitioner. It has been found that rent at the rate of Rs. 1000/- p.m. is payable and the arrears are to be paid w.e.f. March, 2001 till date alongwith interest and costs of Rs. 500/-.
2. Shri Y.M. Bhagirath, learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner has argued that the provisional rent assessed by the Rent Controller is neither based on any evidence nor it is reasonable because the land lord-respondent himself has been issuing receipts accepting the rate of rent as Rs. 125/- p.m. Me has placed reliance on the receipts Ex.P1 to P4. Learned counsel has also submitted that the rent has already been paid till 1.2.2004. Therefore, the order of the Rent Controller suffers from inherent legal defect and is liable to be set aside.
3. After hearing the learned counsel and persuing the impugned order, I am of the considered view that such a petition would not be maintainable under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (as applicable to U.T. Chandigarh) because the proceedings for assessment of the rate of rent as arrears of rent are summary in nature. No detailed orders are required to be recorded before passing the order of assessment of rent. Such an order is for the benefit of the tenant because by paying the rent in accordance with the provisional assessment made by the Rent Controller he would avoid the risk of ejectment if eventually the rent paid by him on his own assessment is found to be insufficient. Such a tender would not be accepted as payment of rent. Once the Rent Controller has taken up the task of assessment of provisional rent as has been directed by the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, (2002-2)131 P.L.R. 370, then the tenant must comply with that order of assessment unless it is shown that such an order would result into manifest injustice to the tenant. It is only in exceptional cases of manifest” injustice that this Court may like to interfere in the order of provisional assessment of rent. Otherwise, no such petition is maintainable against the order making provisional assessment of rent.
4. The argument of the learned counsel that receipts Ex.P1 to P4 have been produced would not require any detailed consideration because the order does not reveal reliance of the tenant-petitioner on such like documents. At the stage of making provisional assessment of rent by way of summary proceedings it would be improper to call for the record and go into these facts. Therefore, I have no hesitation in rejecting this submission of the learned counsel.
5. For the reasons recorded above this petition fails and the same is dismissed in limine.
