IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 666 of 2009 Date of Decision: February 05, 2010 Santokh Singh. …Petitioner Versus Chanchal Singh. …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present: Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the respondent. S.D. Anand, J. It is apparent from a conjunctive perusal of the judgment rendered by the learned Rent Controller and also the learned Appellate Authority that the ejectment of the tenant (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) came about on account of a default on his behalf in paying up the provisionally assessed rent, on the first date of hearing. It is further apparent, from a perusal of the order granted by the learned Rent Controller, that the petitioner had filed an application for the grant of time to be able to file a revision C.R. No. 666 of 2009 petition against the ejectment order dated 20.04.2007. The plea came to be declined by the learned Rent Controller. The petitioner filed an appeal which, too, came to be negatived by the learned Appellate Authority on 07.01.2009. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argues that the impugned order deserves to be invalidated for the reason that there was dispute about the period for which rent was payable and the learned Rent Controller could not have validly insisted upon the payment of provisionally assessed rent without adjudication upon that controversy. The plea is without any force. The law on the point in controversy was authoritatively announced by the Apex Court in Rakesh Wadhawan Vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, AIR 2002 SC 2004 to the effect that if a tenant does not pay up the provisionally assessed rent etc. on the first date of hearing, an ejectment order has to follow as a matter of course. That view is also evident from a Division Bench ruling of this Court in Civil Revision No. 3577 of 2006. That was a case where the matter was referred to the Division Bench in view of “differing interpretations given by two Single Judges of this Court, to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as 2 C.R. No. 666 of 2009 Rakesh Wadhawan Vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, AIR 2002 SC 2004”. The Division Bench approved the view obtained by a Single Bench of this Court in Madan Lal and another vs. Baldev Raj, (2004-2) P.L.R. 834. The Division Bench did not subscribe to the view obtained by the Single Bench of this Court in Rajinder Lal vs. Gopal Krishan (2006-2) P.L.R. 124. In the light thereof, the petition is devoid of force and is ordered to be dismissed. The interim order dated 05.02.2009 passed by this Court shall stand vacated forthwith. The vacation of the stay order shall be intimated to the learned Trial Court forthwith. February 05, 2010 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 3