CR No.1325 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1325 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision:04.03.2011. Raj Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Sanjay Saini ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) The tenant is in revision against the orders of the Courts below by which he has been ordered to vacate the demised premises. Though the relationship of landlord and tenant is not denied, but the rate of rent is the bone of contention between the parties. The landlord claimed rent @ `10,000/- per month, whereas the tenant alleged it @ `6,800/- per month. The learned Rent Controller fixed the provisional rent @ `10,000/- per month which was not deposited by the tenant and consequently he was ordered to be evicted from the demised premises. However, the tenant had offered to make the payment of provisional rent @ `6,800/- before the learned Rent Controller which was not accepted. The same offer was made by him before the learned Appellate Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Rent Controller and the learned Appellate Authority have committed an error in not allowing the petitioner to deposit the rent @ `6,800/- per month which was the rate of rent according to him. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that once the provisional rent is fixed by the learned Rent Controller and the same is not deposited by the tenant, in terms of the judgment rendered by the CR No.1325 of 2011(O&M) -2- Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan and others Vs .M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and others, AIR 2002 SC 2004, he is liable for eviction and no opportunity can be granted thereafter. The same view has been followed by the Division Bench of this Court in CR No.3577 of 2006 titled as `Rajan alias Raj Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar' decided on 07.01.2010. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any error in the orders of the Courts below and as such, the present revision petition is found to be without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed in limine, however, without any order as to costs. March 04, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE