JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - CM No. 14274.CII of 2012 Allowed as prayed for. CM No. 14275.CII of 2012 The application is allowed and Annexure P/1 to P/4 are taken on record. CR No. 3305 of 2012 Tenants Manmohan Singh etc. have filed this revision petition under section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short, the Act). 2. Respondent landlord Prince Pal Singh filed ejectment petition under section 13 of the Act against the tenants – petitioners inter alia on the ground that they have not paid rent of the demised property since 1.4.2005. 3. The tenants alleged that the landlord agreed to sell the demised property to Manmohan Singh tenant no. 2 vide agreement dated 7.4.2006 and Manmohan Singh has filed suit for specific performance of the said agreement and after the said agreement, the landlord is not entitled to receive rent whereas rent upto 31.3.2006 already stood paid. 4. Learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana vide order dated 12.11.2010 allowed the ejectment petition. Appeal against the said order preferred by tenants has been dismissed by learned Appellate Authority, Ludhiana vide order dated 24.2.2012. Feeling aggrieved, tenants have filed this revision petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. 6. Counsel for tenants/petitioners vehemently contended that the tenants never denied the relationship of tenant and landlord between the parties and observation by the Rent Controller that tenants denied the relationship of tenant and landlord between the parties has been rightly reversed by the Appellate Authority. It was contended that the Rent Controller did not assess provisional rent and the landlord had no right to receive rent since after 7.4.2006, the date of agreement to sell and therefore, there was no ground to order ejectment of the tenants. 7. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions but the same cannot be accepted. The tenants have relied on receipt dated 7.4.2006 which is stated to be agreement to sell. Vide this receipt, landlord’s father received Rs. 50,000/- on behalf of the landlord from tenant no 2 as advance for sale of the demised property for Rs.75,50,000/-. Schedule of payment of the remaining amount was also mentioned in the receipt. However, this receipt (photostat copy shown by counsel for the petitioner ) does not stipulate that since the date of receipt, the landlord would not be entitled to receive rent. Schedule of payment of the remaining amount was also mentioned in the receipt. However, this receipt (photostat copy shown by counsel for the petitioner ) does not stipulate that since the date of receipt, the landlord would not be entitled to receive rent. This receipt does not amount to sale of the demised property. There has to be registered sale deed for the sale of the property. Admittedly, no registered sale deed has been executed. Consequently, the respondent landlord continues to be owner as well as landlord of the demised property and is entitled to receive the rent. However, the tenants alleged that landlord is not entitled to receive rent since 7.4.2006 onwards. Thus, the tenants themselves declined to pay rent for the said period. However, the landlord continues to be entitled to receive rent of the demised property till sale deed thereof is executed. In this context, it is significant to notice that in receipt dated 7.4.2006 relied on by the tenants, there is no stipulation that since the date of the said receipt, the landlord would cease to be entitled to receive rent. In the absence of any such stipulation in the said receipt, it cannot be said that landlord is not entitled to receive rent since 7.4.2006 onwards. Tenants have also not proved that they had paid rent since 1.4.2005 till 31.3.2006 as claimed by landlord. In the facts and circumstances aforesaid, Authorities below have rightly ordered ejectment of the tenants from the demised property on the ground of non-payment of rent. The tenants have not paid rent since 1.4.2005 onwards. They refused to pay rent since 7.4.2006 although they were liable to pay the rent. Consequently, non assessment of provisional rent by the Rent Controller does not entitle the tenants to fresh liberty to pay the rent because the tenants themselves did not offer to pay the rent since 7.4.2006 onwards as per their pleadings in the written statement. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision petition. Offer by counsel for the petitioners to pay the rent now at this stage cannot be accepted to set aside the orders of the Authorities below. The tenants failed to pay the rent at the earliest opportunity as per requirement of the Act because they denied their liability to pay the rent since 7.4.2006 and thus, they were not ready to pay the same. The tenants failed to pay the rent at the earliest opportunity as per requirement of the Act because they denied their liability to pay the rent since 7.4.2006 and thus, they were not ready to pay the same. There is no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in impugned orders of the Authorities below so as to call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed in limine. ---------0.B.S.0------------