IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1042 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 17.2.2010 Smt. Meenu Rani ......Petitioner(s) Versus Raj Kumar ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. CM No.3933-CII of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CR No.1042 of 2010 As per the averments made in this petition, the petitioner filed an ejectment application against the respondent for non-payment of rent and for her bonafide use and occupation. The aforesaid petition is being contested by the respondent on various grounds including denial of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It is further averred by the petitioner that the Rent Controller vide his order dated 6.10.2006 had assessed the provisional rent with a further direction to the respondent to tender the same along with costs and interest. However, the respondent did not tender the rent and the case was adjourned further. It is also averred in the petition that one Paramjit Kaur filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking her impleadment as respondent claiming herself to be a tenant in the demised premises. The aforesaid application was dismissed by the Rent Controller vide order dated 7.3.2009. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, her application was CR No.1042 of 2010(O&M) -2- liable to be accepted and the tenant was liable to be ejected on the ground that he has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and has admitted that he was not in possession of the premises in question and also on the ground that he has not paid the provisional rent. However, the Rent Controller vide impugned order dated 7.12.2009 has illegally rejected the prayer of the petitioner and has further adjourned the case for evidence. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that it is well settled that once the tenant has not paid the provisional rent as assessed by the Rent Controller, his eviction has to follow and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. What is the effect and consequence of denying title and relationship of landlord and tenant and not paying the provisional rent shall have to be decided by the Rent Controller while disposing of the main ejectment petition. Admittedly, the trial of ejectment petition has not concluded and it is at the evidence stage. Therefore, at this stage, when the trial is still pending, no such direction as prayed can be given to the Rent Controller. Dismissed. February 17, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE