JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.: - The tenants are in revision. 2. The landlady let out SCF No.3, Sector 9D, Chandigarh to the tenants initially @ Rs.55,000/- per month with 6% increase per annum till the expiry of lease on 31.07.2007 but before expiry of the said lease, the tenants got the lease extended through a registered lease deed dated 09.05.2007 for another 3 years which was to expire on 31.07.2010. The three years’ lease had started w.e.f. 01.08.2007 as per which the tenants were to pay the rent as under: Period Rate of rent 01.08.2007 to 31.07.2008 Rs.77,034/- per month 01.08.2008 to 31.07.2009 Rs. 77,416/- per month 01.08.2009 to 31.07.2010 Rs. 82,060/- per month 3. It was further agreed in para no.5 of the lease deed “that in case the lessees do not vacate the premises at the end of 3 years from the date of commencement of the lease period i.e. by 31.07.2010 and no mutual agreed terms are settled between the lessor and the lessees on or before 01.05.2010 the lessees will be liable to pay rent of Rs.1,50,000/- per month, and the lessor can take over the premises from the lessees.” Admittedly there was no extension of lease after 31.07.2010, rather the landlady had filed the eviction petition, inter alia, on the grounds of non-payment of rent, material impairment and personal necessity. In the written statement dated 07.01.2011, it was alleged that “on the expiry of tenure of this lease deed, the petitioner asked respondent No.3 to increase the rate of rent. A meeting was held between the petitioner, respondent No.3 and Sh. Sanjeev Lall a common friend of both the parties. During this meeting, the petitioner demanded the rent @ Rs.1,20,000/- per month with increase by 7% every year for the next three years and after expiry of three years, the rate of rent as Rs.5 lacs per month for the next one and half year and on the expiry of said period of one and half year, the rent will be 7% on Rs. 5 lacs. This demand of payment of Rs.5 lacs was not acceded to by respondent No.3. On this the petitioner stated that she will send a draft of lease deed having tenure of four and half years. Thereafter, a copy thereof was sent by the petitioner to respondent No.3. 5 lacs. This demand of payment of Rs.5 lacs was not acceded to by respondent No.3. On this the petitioner stated that she will send a draft of lease deed having tenure of four and half years. Thereafter, a copy thereof was sent by the petitioner to respondent No.3. As the whole motive of the petitioner was to have higher rate of rent, the respondent No.3 in presence of Mr. Sanjeev Lall, a common friend to the parties to the petition, again had a meeting with the petitioner and respondents agreed to pay rent @ Rs.1,20,000/- per month with increase of 7% every year but did ot agree to pay rent Rs.5 lacs per month in the manner stated above. No final settlement was made and immediately after some days, the petitioner preferred the present petition.” The landlady filed replication and denied the aforesaid averments of the written statement. 4. The learned Rent Controller, vide its order dated 29.11.2011, assessed the provisional rent in the following manner: Rent @ Rs.1,20,000/- per month Rs.19,20,000/- from 01.08.2010 to 30.11.2011 (16 months) Interest @ 6% p.a. Rs. 81,600/- Cost Rs.2,000/- Total Rs.20,03,600/- 5. The tenants were asked to pay the provisionally assessed rent on 06.01.2012. The tenants filed a Review Application dated 13.12.2011 which was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller vide its order dated 16.12.2011. Both the tenants as well as the landlady filed their respective appeals against order of the assessment of the provisional rent as the landlady was also not satisfied with the amount of Rs.1,20,000/- per month as she was claiming the rent @ Rs.1,50,000/- per month in terms of Clause 5 of the rent agreement dated 09.05.2007. The learned Appellate Authority, vide its impugned order dated 06.01.2012, dismissed the appeal of the tenants and while allowing the appeal of the landlady assessed the provisional rent @ Rs.1,50,000/- per month instead of Rs.1,20,000/- per month. The tenants have challenged the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Authority in this revision petition, inter alia, on the grounds that the landlady cannot rely upon Clause 5 of the registered lease deed dated 09.05.2007 after its expiry on 31.07.2010 and that the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- cannot be claimed as the same is penal in nature which is prohibited in terms of Section 7 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short “the Act”]. It is argued that admittedly the registered lease deed was executed between the parties in terms of which the tenants have been paying the rent for the period of 3 years. The problem started after the expiry of lease when the landlady wanted to increase the rent and it was decided between the parties through a common friend that rent could be charged @ Rs.1,20,000/- per month but the landlady was adamant to claim the rent @ Rs.1,50,000/- per month. It is submitted that after the expiry of lease deed on 31.07.2010, it cannot be enforced. In support of his submission, he has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Hardev Kaur (deceased) through her legal representatives v. M/s. Ghazal Restaurant, Chandigarh and others, 1992(2) PLR 712. In respect of the second submission that the rent @ Rs.1,50,000/- per month is penal in nature, learned counsel for the petitioners-tenants has referred to Section 7 of the Act, which is reproduced as under: “7. Fine or premium not to be charged for grant, renewal or continuance of tenancy. -- (1) No landlord shall in consideration of the grant, renewal or continuance of a tenancy of any building or rented land require the payment of any fine, premium or any other like sum in addition to the rent. (2) Nothing in this section shall apply to any payment under any subsisting agreement entered into before the 1st day of January, 1939.” 7. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent-caveator has argued that the decision in the case of Smt. Hardev Kaur’s case (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. He rather relied upon a decision of this Court in CR-4202-2003 titled as ‘Ashok Kumar Garg Vs. Rakesh Garg’ decided on 23.01.2006. In respect of the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- mentioned in Clause 5 of the lease deed being penal in nature, it is submitted that it is not the case of the tenants in their written statement. 8. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Admittedly, there is no dispute about the registered lease deed dated 09.05.2007. The issue which has been raised is as to “whether Clause 5 of the lease deed dated 09.05.2007 would be operative even after its expiry on 31.07.2010”. 10. 8. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Admittedly, there is no dispute about the registered lease deed dated 09.05.2007. The issue which has been raised is as to “whether Clause 5 of the lease deed dated 09.05.2007 would be operative even after its expiry on 31.07.2010”. 10. According to learned counsel of the petitioners-tenants, if the period of lease was continuing only then the terms and conditions enumerated in Clause 5 of the lease deed would have been operative. In the case of Smt. Hardev Kaur’s (supra), there were 5 covenants in the lease deed in which covenant No.3 was that on completion of three years, the lessees shall pay 10% increased rent to the lessors. If the lessees do not agree to pay the increased rate of rent, then they would vacate the building and hand over to the owners. Pursuant to covenant No.3 of the lease deed, on the expiry of the period of three years, the rent was to be increased @ 10% and the lessees had to pay rent at the enhanced rate. The lessees, on the expiry of three years’ period, tendered rent, on the eviction application filed by the lessors. It was argued that since the lease deed was for 5 years and after the expiry of 3 years, the eviction petition was filed, the other Clauses of lease could be relied upon as the lease deed was in continuation. 11. This judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case, rather the decision relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent-landlady in Ashok Kumar Garg’s case (supra) is fully applicable because in the said case, the tenant was inducted through a registered lease deed dated 19.07.1991 for a period of 5 years on a monthly rent of Rs.7,320/-. As per the agreement, after the expiry of the lease period, the tenant was to deliver actual vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlord at once, but it was also agreed between the parties that the tenant could seek further renewal of the lease deed for another period of 5 years subject to negotiations. However, after the expiry of lease period, the tenant neither vacated the premises nor paid the enhanced rent despite notice. However, after the expiry of lease period, the tenant neither vacated the premises nor paid the enhanced rent despite notice. The eviction petition was filed by the landlord on the ground of non-payment of rent and house tax. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition on the ground that the tenant was liable to pay the monthly rent @ Rs.7,320/-, at the old rate. It was also held that after the expiry of the lease period, there was no negotiation regarding the increase in rent, therefore, the rate of rent between the parties remained the same. In appeal, the order of the Rent Controller was set aside with the observations that “the second party (tenant) had an option of seeking further renewal of the lease deed for a further period of five years in the same terms and conditions, subject to 30% enhancement in rent therefore. The negotiations in this respect were to be commenced and completed at least two months or the expiry of lease period i.e. five years and the enhanced rent in that case shall be effected from the last month of five years”. It was argued by the tenant that no clause after the expiry of the period of registered lease deed is enforceable as the lease deed was only for 5 years, therefore, after the expiry of the lease period, the enhancement clause cannot be made applicable and the tenant is liable to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.7,320/- per month. It was argued by learned counsel for the landlord that there was a stipulation in the lease deed that the lease period will be only for 5 years and thereafter, the tenant was to hand over the vacant possession to the landlord. Further, there was a clause that if the tenant wants renewal of lease deed for another period of 5 years, then the same shall be subject to condition of 30% enhancement of the rent. The clause of negotiations was with regard to the extension of the lease period and was not with regard to the rate of rent. If the parties agreed for extension of period, then 30% increase was automatic. The clause of negotiations was with regard to the extension of the lease period and was not with regard to the rate of rent. If the parties agreed for extension of period, then 30% increase was automatic. It was observed by this Court that since the tenant did not vacate the premises after the expiry of the lease period and in spite of the notice given by the respondent-landlord, he did not pay the enhanced rent, the Appellate Authority had rightly held that the tenant is liable to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.9,516/- per month with 30% increase and the clause for enhancement of the rent in this situation can be looked into for collateral purpose by the Court. 12. In view of the decision of this Court in Ashok Kumar Garg’s case (supra), I do not find any merit in the first submission made by learned counsel for the tenants. 13. It is worthwhile to mention that earlier also, the lease was for 3 years which was to expire on 31.07.2007 but two months before its expiry, it was extended by the present lease deed dated 09.05.2007. Similarly, Clause 5 of the present lease deed has a stipulation that the tenant can negotiate about the rent and extension of time on or before 01.05.2010, i.e. two months before the expiry of the lease deed dated 31.07.2010 and if they fail to do it, then they would be liable to pay the rent @ Rs.1,50,000/-. Since this condition was accepted by the tenants who have not challenged the same in the written statement as a penal provision, the protection of Section 7 of the Act is not available to them. Moreover, the learned counsel for the tenants has failed to show as to how the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was within the definition of fine or premium. Rather it has been held in Smt. Hardev Kaur’s case (supra) that it is permissible for the parties to provide for increase in rent by agreement as rent is defined as periodical payment for use of another’s property and increase in rent by agreement does not take the character of fine or premium. 14. No other point has been argued before this Court. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and hence, the same is hereby dismissed. ---------------