JUDGMENT Permod Kohli, J.(Oral):- The petitioner has challenged the legality of the order dated 3.3.2006 passed by the Rent Controller, Sangrur whereby the interim rent has been determined as Rs.45,000/- p.m. in respect to the demised premises. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order primarily on the ground that the respondent-landlord has failed to provide the necessary services in terms of the lease deed dated 2.3.2004 executed between the parties. He has referred to sub-clause (v) of clause 7, which inter alia provide that new rate of rent at Rs.45000/- will be released after taking over possession of the building. It is not in dispute that possession of the building has been taken over by the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that the rent at the enhanced rate is not payable as the landlord has failed to provide other necessary services. To support this contention, reference is made to a letter dated 10.12.2005 written by the State Bank of India asking the landlord to complete certain works, which include white washing, painting etc., replacement of the water tank and other pending works. The question whether the landlord has provided all these facilities and whether there is deficiency, is required to be examined by the Rent Controller. Since the possession has been delivered to the petitioner, he is liable to pay the rent at the enhanced rate. The Rent Controller however, while passing a subsequent order dated 19.3.2007 has already imposed conditions of refund of the rent in the event the landlord is not found entitled to the enhanced rate of rent for not providing services. In view of the above, I do not find that the impugned order suffers from any legal infirmity and factual error. 2. No merit. Dismissed. The liability of the petitioner shall remain subject to the final decision in the petition pending before the Rent Controller. --------------------------------------