CR No.7267 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.7267 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.11.2011 Kusum Lata ......Petitioner(s) Versus Gurdyal Singh ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) This is tenant's revision petition challenging the impugned order of eviction dated 7.1.2011 of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh and the judgment dated 30.8.2011 of the Appellate Authority, dismissing his appeal against the aforesaid order. Shorn of unnecessary details, it is sufficient to mention that vide order dated 2.12.2010, the provisional assessment of rent, for the demised premises was made and the case was fixed for 7.1.2011 for tendering provisionally assessed rent. However, the petitioner failed to make the payment of provisionally assessed rent on the date fixed and instead of tendering rent, moved an application for modification of the aforesaid order which was dismissed and vide order dated 7.1.2011 the order of eviction was passed against him for non tendering of provisionally assessed rent. Appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority. Before this Court also, learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to challenge the settled proposition of law in this regard to the effect CR No.7267 of 2011 (O&M) 2 that on failure of the tenant to comply with the order of payment of provisionally assessed rent, nothing remains to be done and an order for eviction shall follow. In this regard, reliance can be placed on a judmgnet of the Division Bench of this Court cited as Rajan alias Raj Kumar versus Rakesh Kumar 2010 (1) Haryana Law Report 264 wherein it has been observed as under: “The ratio of judgment in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra) leaves no manner of doubt that the provisional rent and other ancillary charges assessed by the rent controller had to be deposited by the tenant on the next date of hearing along with arrears, interest and costs etc., as may be determined by the above said authority. The first date of hearing has also been interpreted to mean, the first date of hearing after determination of provisional rent and other expenses by the rent controller. A reading of conclusions drawn in para No.30 of the judgment in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra), leaves no doubt that if after determinations of the provisional rent, a tenant fails to deposit the same, nothing remains to be done and an order of ejectment of a tenant has to be passed. The language of conclusion No.4 in the said para is very clear and needs no further interpretation. The Court is further of the view that the benefit of conclusion No.5 and 6 would become available to a tenant only on his making a deposit of the provisional rent and other ancillary charges determined by the rent controller by the rent controller and not otherwise. It was implicitly made clear that it is the bounden duty of the tenant to deposit the provisional rent determined by the Rent Controller, otherwise it will entail the tenant's ejectment from the premises in dispute. This court feels that if a tenant is dissatisfied with the interim order passed by the Rent Controller, he has an opportunity to challenge the same before the date fixed for payment, in the higher forum.” CR No.7267 of 2011 (O&M) 3 Faced with the aforesaid situation, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner be given some time to vacate the demised premises. It is also submitted that the petitioner is ready to file an undertaking before the Rent Controller in this regard and shall also make payment of arrears of rent, if any, and she shall keep on paying the rent in advance till the date of handing over the vacant possession. Keeping in view the submissions made before this Court, this petition is dismissed with the observations that the petitioner is granted four month's time from today to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent-landlord, subject to the condition that she shall make the payment of arrears of rent, if any, within two months from today and shall also keep on paying the rent in advance i.e. 10th of every month till vacation of the premises. It is further directed that the petitioner shall also file an undertaking within one month from today before the Rent Controller that she shall vacate the premises and hand over the vacant possession to the respondent-landlord on or before 28.3.2012. In case of violation of any of the conditions as aforesaid, the eviction order shall come into force immediately. It is also clarified that in case the petitioner fails to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises as per the submissions made before this Court and the undertaking furnished before the Rent Controller, the respondent-landlord shall be entitled to initiate contempt proceedings against the petitioner, in addition to his remedy of execution of the eviction order. November 28, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE