Civil Revison No.708 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revison No.708 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:02.02.2010. M/s Tractor House ...Petitioner Versus Vijay Bir Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The petitioner herein has applied for invalidation of the order dated 03.11.2009 vide which the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller that the ejectment petition filed by the respondent – landlord deserved allowance forthwith on account of a default on the part of the petitioner – tenant in paying up the provisionally assessed rent etc. on the first date of hearing. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argues that the impugned order deserves to be set at naught in view of the fact that the leaned Rent Controller ought to have afforded yet another opportunity to the petitioner – tenant to pay up the provisionally assessed rent. Reliance, in support of the advocated view, is placed upon Rajinder Lal Vs. Gopal Krishan, 2006(2) PLR 125. That ruling was not approved by the Division Bench of this Court in the course of order dated 07.01.2010 granted by the Division Bench of this Court in Civil Revision No.3577 of 2006. That was a case where the matter was referred to the Division Bench in view of “differing interpretations given by two Single Judges of this Court, to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Rakesh Wadhawan V. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation AIR 2002 SC 2004”. The Division Bench approved the view obtained by a Single Bench of this Court in Madan Lal and another V. Baldev Raj, (2004-2), Civil Revison No.708 of 2010 (O&M) -2- P.L.R., 834. The Division Bench did not subscribe to the view obtained by the Single Bench of this Court in Rajinder Lal V. Gopal Krishan (2006-2), P.L.R., 124. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, is not in a position to invite attention of this Court to any judicial pronouncement from the Apex Court which could be contrary to the view obtained by the Division Bench of this Court in Rajan alias Raj Kumar Vs. Rakesh Kumar, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Civil Revision No.3577 of 2006. In the light thereof, the petition is held to be devoid of merit and is ordered to be dismissed in limine. February 02, 2010 (S.D.ANAND) vinod* JUDGE