CR No.3645 of 2011 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CR No.3645 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 31.05.2011 Ram Narain . . .Petitioner Versus Amin Chand . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Deepali Puri, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The only point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned court below has erred in not extending time for tendering the rent despite the hardship shown by the tenant vide his application dated 29.3.2011. In brief, the landlord filed petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short ‘the Act’) for seeking eviction of the tenant from House No. BXX-760, Ghumar Mandi, Ludhiana, inter alia, on the ground of arrears of rent @ `2000/- per month since April 2004 alongwith electricity charges. In reply, the tenant denied the rate of rent as `2000/- per month and alleged that it was `200/- per month and rent has been paid from February 2001 upto date. On 24.2.2011, the learned Rent Controller assessed the provisional rent from 1.4.2004 to 28.2.2011 @ `200/- per month amounting to `16,600/- and assessed the component of interest and cost @ `3486/- and `3000/- respectively and directed the tenant to pay a total sum of `23,086/- on 29.3.2011. On the said date the tenant did not tender the rent rather filed the application for extension of time on the ground that he had suffered an injury and his Advocate is also not present, however, the application was filed through another Advocate. The learned Court below dismissed the application relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of “Rakesh Wadhawan and others Vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and others” 2002(1) Rent Control Reporter 514 and held that if the rent is not tendered on the date fixed then eviction order would follow. CR No.3645 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the available record. In my considered view, the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to extend the time for tendering the provisional rent until and unless the Rent Controller is at fault. The tenant has not supported his application with material from which the Court could have prima facie found out the alleged hardship inasmuch as he did not even mention the date on which he met with an accident nor did he attach any medical record. Even if he had suffered injury, he was not to appear himself in Court for the purpose of tender as it could have been done by his Advocate, who had filed the application on his behalf on the said date. Thus, the prayer for extension of time was obviously for the reason that the tenant was not having arrangement of the amount which was supposed to be tendered by him and the reason assigned in the application was only a lame excuse. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any error in the approach of the Court below in dismissing the application and passing the eviction order against the tenant in the given facts and circumstances of the case. In view thereof, present revision petition is hereby dismissed in limine though without any order as to costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) MAY 31, 2011 JUDGE Vivek