CR No.4459 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.4459 of 2010 Date of Decision: 27 - 8 - 2010 B.L.Dhawan ....Petitioner v. Dayanand ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Sudhir Paruthi, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) In the present revision petition, order dated 31.5.2010, passed by the Rent Controller, Panchkula has been assailed, wherein the Rent Controller declined prayer of the petitioner-landlord to cause eviction of the respondent-tenant, for non compliance of order dated 27.7.2009 provisionally assessing the rent. The Rent Controller on 27.7.2009 had assessed the rent of the demised premises at the rate of Rs.1800/- p.m. for the period commencing from 1.6.2007 to 31.7.2009, along with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum and costs of Rs.450/-. The total amount assessed was Rs.51,462/-, which the respondent-tenant was held liable to pay. CR No.4459 of 2010 [2] The respondent-tenant made a statement that he had paid the rent for the period 1.7.2007 to December, 2008 and he was ready and willing to pay the rent for the period from 1.1.2009 to 31.7.2009 at the rate of Rs.1800/- p.m. Petitioner-landlord had not accepted the amount and pressed for eviction of the respondent-tenant relying upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Rajan alias Raj Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar, 2010(1) RCR(Rent) 386. The Rent Controller has held that since there is a dispute regarding the period for which the rent is to be paid, an enquiry ought to be held. It is submitted that in case the respondent-tenant had disputed the period for which the rent has already been paid, there were two remedies available to the respondent-tenant i.e. Either to approach the higher Court and get the order of provisional assessment of rent passed by the Rent Controller modified before the date fixed for payment or the respondent- tenant ought to have paid the amount as provisionally assessed by the Rent Controller subject to adjustment of the payment made in excess qua the future rent or may have filed counter claim for the refund. It is in this context, that counsel for the petitioner submits that the Rent Controller, Panchkula while passing the impugned order dated 31.5.2010 has not taken into consideration the ratio of law laid down in Rajan alias Raj Kumar's case (supra). Counsel has drawn my attention to para 13 of the judgment, the relevant extract of which reads as under:- “....It was implicitly made clear that it is the bounden duty of the tenant to deposit the provisional rent determined by the Rent Controller, otherwise it will entail the tenant's ejectment from the premises in dispute. This Court feels that if a tenant is CR No.4459 of 2010 [3] dissatisfied with the interim order passed by the Rent Controller, he has an opportunity to challenge the same before the date fixed for payment, in the higher forum.” Counsel further states that at the time when the provisional rent already assessed was to be paid, the tenant has not tendered the same but has taken a stand that rent has been paid for earlier period and further sought adjustment of rent so paid in future. Counsel submits that except the bald statement of the tenant recorded on 12.10.2009, no document or receipt was produced to show that payment of the provisional rent assessed has been made to the petitioner-landlord. Nobody has caused appearance for the tenant-respondent. In view of the observations made above, order dated 31.5.2010 passed by the Rent Controller is set aside. The Rent Controller is directed to proceed further as per ratio of law laid down in Rakesh Wadhawan v. M/s.Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, 2002(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 514 and Rajan alias Raj Kumar's case (supra) by passing an order afresh. This direction has been issued as no one has appeared for the tenant-respondent despite service. The present petition stands disposed of. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) August 27, 2010. JUDGE RC