IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1381 of 2007 Date of decision:26.05.2009 Rajinder Kumar ...Petitioner versus Kewal Krishan Pabbi ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Brijeshwar Singh Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Samarath Sagar, Advocate for the respondent. ----- 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 ? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The revision is against the order of ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that the respondent had not paid the rent as directed and applying the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan and others versus M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and others-2002 S.A.R. Civil 539, the Court had directed that ejectment would follow as a mere matter of course in the event of default by the tenant. Since the tenant had not made the payment even before the Appellate Court, the appeal affirmed the decision of the Rent Controller and directed an ejectment. 2. The counsel for the revision-petitioner states that the tenant is willing to pay the rent as stood accumulated till date. However, Civil Revision No.1381 of 2007 - 2 - the landlord is not prepared to receive the amount. The issue in revision is whether the tenant could fend off an order of eviction in spite of not complying with the directions for payment of rent either before the Rent Controller or at the Appellate Authority but by making a fresh offer in revision. The decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court referred to above admits of no ambiguity that the tenant who does not pay the rent either at the first hearing or where there was a dispute as to the quantum of rent contended, when the Court determines such rent and grants the time to make the payment, the tenant shall render himself liable for eviction. The order that was passed by the Rent Controller records the inevitable consequence of the lapse on the part of the tenant in failing to comply with the directions and the reasoning had to be affirmed, by the manner in which the circumstances stood in appeal, when the tenant had still not complied with the directions contained in the order of the Rent Controller. 3. There is no scope in allowing the tenant to take the advantage of his own wrong and grant to him any indulgence before the revisional Court. The orders of the authorities below stand confirmed and the Civil Revision is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 26.05.2009 sanjeev