CR No.2800 of 2011 (O&M) -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2800 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:29.04.2011. Firm Roop Milan Hotel and Restaurant, Moga ...Petitioner Versus Sathi Vijay Kumar ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. N.S.Dandiwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 13.04.2011 by which the learned Rent Controller, while hearing the application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short “CPC”] for seeking reversal of order of eviction passed ex-parte on 29.03.2004, has directed the petitioner to comply with the directions contained in the said order dated 29.03.2004 in letter and spirit if his application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC is ultimately dismissed. In short, the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant from the demised premises on the ground of arrears of rent @ `20,000/- per year w.e.f. 25.11.1999. The tenant did not appear despite notice and was proceeded against ex-parte on 05.10.2002. Thereafter, the landlord led his oral as well as documentary evidence. The learned Rent Controller, while allowing the eviction application, observed as under: - “I hold that respondent is in arrears of rent at the rate of `20,000/- per year since 25.11.1999 till date. The conditional order of the ejectment is hereby CR No.2800 of 2011 (O&M) -2- ***** passed directing the respondent/tenant to pay arrears of rent as arrived at above along with interest and costs as per law within 15 days from today failing which he shall vacate and handover the vacant possession of the demised premises as fully depicted in the site plan Ex.A2 to the applicant with costs. Cost of petition is assessed `500/-.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid condition imposed upon him in the order dated 13.04.2011 may be deleted as it would prejudice his case for the purpose of filing appeal in case his application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC is dismissed by the learned Rent Controller. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the available record. The anxiety of the petitioner is totally ill-founded because if the application filed by him under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC is dismissed he would still have 15 days' time to file the statutory appeal which is otherwise to be filed within 30 days from the date of order and for that matter the reason assigned by the petitioner cannot be accepted. In view of the above, this revision petition is found to be without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed in limine though without any order as to costs. April 29, 2011. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge