IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6708 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 07.12.2009 Sham Sunder Chauhan .....Petitioner versus Satyapal .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed by the tenant against the order dated 12.11.2009 passed by the Rent Controller-cum-Executing Court, Hisar, whereby his objections in the execution petition have been turned down and his application for extension of time to deposit a part of the arrears of rent, has also been dismissed. The respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition against the petitioner-tenant on the solitary ground that he is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 21.7.1995 onwards and had not paid the agreed rent in terms of the rent note dated 26.7.1993 duly executed between the parties. The petitioner-tenant contest the eviction petition and denied the rate of rent claimed by the landlord, as well as the period for which he C.R. No.6708 of 2009 (O&M) 2 was alleged to be in arrears of rent. A perusal of the conditional eviction order dated 25.11.2005 passed by the Rent Controller, Hisar, reveals that the petitioner's plea were disbelieved on both counts. Consequently, the Rent Controller passed the order dated 25.11.2005 directing the petitioner- tenant to pay the arrears of rent w.e.f. 21.7.1995 to 21.7.1996 @ Rs.1200/- per month + House Tax Rs.1800/- + Interest Rs.702/-; w.e.f. 21.7.1996 to 21.7.1998 and thereafter, @ Rs.2400/- per month + interest Rs.7308/-. The petitioner-tenant was, however, permitted to deduct the amount of Rs.19000/-, already deposited on 31.3.1999, from the payable dues. It was further directed that the petitioner-tenant would pay the afore-mentioned amount within 2 months from the date of the order, failing which he would be liable to be evicted from the demised premises. Aggrieved, the petitioner-tenant preferred an appeal which was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Hisar, vide the judgment dated 29.11.2006. Thereafter, in purported compliance of the order dated 25.11.2005 passed by the Rent Controller, the petitioner-tenant deposited Rs.44410/- on 21.12.2006. The respondent-landlord withdrew the said amount on 30.1.2007 and on the very next day i.e., on 31.1.2007, he moved an application seeking execution of the eviction order on the ground that the arrears of rent to be deposited by the petitioner-tenant, after deducting Rs.19000/- were to be Rs.80,810/- as against the amount of Rs.44410/- actually tendered by him. Realising that the amount deposited by him was short and C.R. No.6708 of 2009 (O&M) 3 there was no compliance to the conditional eviction order dated 25.11.2005, the petitioner-tenant moved an application for extension of time “to deposit a sum of Rs.28000/- alongwith interest”. The said application has been dismissed by the Rent Controller vide the impugned order dated 12.11.2009. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the various orders including the impugned order. The plea taken by the petitioner-tenant that the due amount in terms of the order dated 25.11.2005 could not be deposited on account of bonafide mistake regarding calculation, cannot be accepted for the reason that the order dated 25.11.2005 itself mentioned the due amount to be deposited by the petitioner-tenant. The non-deposit of the entire arrears of rent by the petitioner-tenant will have to be seen in the backdrop of his plea before the Rent Controller in the eviction petition in which he had denied the rate of rent as well as the period for which he was alleged to be in arrears of rent. In this view of the matter, non-deposit of the arrears of rent by the petitioner-tenant within the stipulated period, cannot be said to be an error of wrong calculations. No interference with the impugned order by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, is called for. Dismissed. 07-12-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE