Civil Revision No. 5216 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 5216 of 2010 Date of Decision: 19.8.2010 Navi Cooke …Petitioner Versus J.P. Sharma …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. G.L. Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The respondent/landlord filed an eviction petition stating that the premises were let out to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month excluding electricity & water charges and house tax. Lease agreement dated 27.3.2002 and 1.4.2002 executed between the parties were relied. According to these documents, the rent was to enhance at the rate of 5% every year. At the time of filing of the eviction petition, the rent payable to the landlord was Rs.8,820/- per month. The plea, advanced by the petitioner/tenant that rent note was forged and fabricated, was rejected. The petitioner was held to be in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.2.2005 and provisional rent payable by the tenant was assessed at Rs.4,72,000/-. The tenant had tendered only Rs.99,000/-. He was in arrears of rent amounting to Rs.3,73,000/- upto December 2009. Two Civil Revision No. 5216 of 2010 2 opportunities were provided to the tenant for payment of provisional rent assessed but she failed to do so. The Rent Controller relying upon Rakesh Wadhawan v. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation AIR 2002 Supreme Court 2004 and recent judgment of a Division Bench of this Court Rajan alias Raj Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar (Civil Revision No. 3577 of 2006, decided on 7.1.2010), ordered eviction of the petitioner. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed an appeal. The Appellate Authority held that the order of provisional assessment of the rent was not challenged and the same was accepted by the petitioner. It was further held by the Appellate Authority that the Rent Controller had granted two effective opportunities to the petitioner to pay provisional rent as assessed by the Rent Controller on 28.1.2010. Failure on the part of the petitioner to deposit the rent led to his eviction. No fault can be found with the well reasoned findings recorded by both the Courts below. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, prays that three months' time be granted to the petitioner to hand over actual physical vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent/landlord. I find merit in the alternative submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. A period of three months, commencing from 1.9.2010, is granted to the petitioner/tenant to make an alternative arrangement subject to her furnishing an undertaking to the Court of Rent Controller, Civil Revision No. 5216 of 2010 3 Panchkula, on 15.9.2010 that she will hand over actual physical vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent/landlord. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge August 19, 2010 “DK”