IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1490 of 2010 Date of Decision: March 26, 2010 Paras Ram ….Petitioner Versus Daljit Singh. …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present: Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate, for the petitioner. S.D. Anand, J. The ejectment of the petitioner – tenant from the tenanted premises came to be ordered by the learned Rent Controller and also the learned Appellate Authority on a finding that he had defaulted in tendering the provisionally assessed rent etc. in accord with the law laid down by the Apex Court in Rakesh Wadhawan Vs. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, 2002 (1) RCR (Rent) 514. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, states that the petitioner – tenant could not pay up the rent as he had challenged the initial order (granted by the C.R. No. 1490 of 2010 learned Rent Controller assessing the provisional rent etc.) and this Court had stayed the operation of that order on 27.02.2008 in Civil Revision No. 1205 of 2008. That order is extracted hereunder:- “Notice of motion for 28.03.2008. Operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed subject to the petitioner tendering rent at the rate and for the period admitted in the written statement. Copy of this order be given dasti on payment of usual charges.” The learned counsel is fair enough to concede that the revision petition aforementioned ultimately came to be negatived by this Court, vide order dated 21.11.2008. The Co- ordinate Bench (which disposed of the revision petition) held that the petitioner – tenant shall have one month’s time w.e.f. the date of that order to deposit the balance assessed amount. The learned counsel is not in a position to deny that order dated 21.11.2008 did not come to be complied with by the petitioner – tenant filed a plea, for extension of time, under Section 148 of CPC. The averment, made in the course thereof, was that the order could not be complied with as it was nowhere announced in the impugned order that the amount was to be paid within one month. A copy of the extension application has been placed on record as Annexure P/4. The 2 C.R. No. 1490 of 2010 relevant part of the averment made therein is extracted hereunder:- “4. That the said order was announced on 21.11.2008 but at that time it was not said that the amount is to be paid within one month.” It is further averred, in the course of the application and reiterated in the course of the presentation before this Court, that the learned counsel who represented the petitioner – tenant made a copy of the order available to him only on 22.12.2008. The relevant part of the averment is also extracted hereunder:- “5. That thereafter the applicant applied for the copy of the order which was supplied later on i.e. 28.11.2008. Therefore, the counsel for applicant Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate at Chandigarh has given the copy of the order on 22.12.2008. Therefore, the applicant was not aware that he will have to deposit the amount of provisional rent within one month.” The learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that he is not in a position to place on record an affidavit of the learned counsel, who represented the petitioner – tenant in the course of the C.R. No. 1205 of 2008 owning up the averments aforementioned. 3 C.R. No. 1490 of 2010 In view, thus, of the proven position that the provisionally assessed rent etc. did not come to be paid by the petitioner – tenant, he cannot validly resist forthwith eviction from the tenanted premises. The petition is held to be devoid of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. March 26, 2010 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 4