Civil Revision No. 3098 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3098 of 2008 Date of decision : 25.3.2010 Mohan Singh @ Gurnam Singh ....Petitioner Versus Jyoti Parshad and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Arun Takhi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.K.Aurora, Advocate for the respondents. S. D. ANAND, J. Learned Rent Controller, vide order dated 17.9.2004, ordered the ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from the tenanted premises on a finding that the latter had not complied with the order dated 21.5.2004 vide which provisional rent assessment etc. was made and the matter was adjourned to 15.6.2004 for tender. The tender made was declined by the respondents-landlords as it was short of the requirement (indicated in the course of the order aforementioned). Instead of complying with the order aforementioned in toto, petitioner-tenant filed an application under Order 6 Rule Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment of the written statement. In the initially filed written statement, the plea raised by the petitioner-tenant was that the agreed rate of rent in the year 1998 was at the rate of Rs.250/- per month and that it had been enhanced to Rs.300/- per month in the year July, 2001. By the proposed amendment, the petitioner-tenant wanted to raise a plea that rate of Civil Revision No. 3098 of 2008 -2- rent in the year 1996 was Rs.1200/- and it had been enhanced to Rs.1260/- in the year 1998. The petitioner-tenant raised a plea that the amendment plea had to be compulsive disposed of in the first instance before he could be called upon to comply with the order dated 21.5.2004. The fact, however, remains that the plea did not find favour with the learned Rent Controller and the petitioner-tenant was ordered to be ejected. In appeal too, the learned Appellate Authority granted a stay order on the implementation of the impugned order dated 17.9.2004 subject to the petitioner-tenant depositing arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month. That order had to be complied with within one month from 30.9.2004. The further rider to obtain the implementation of the stay order was that the petitioner-tenant shall keep on depositing the future rent by the 10th of every month. That order, too, was not complied with and the petitioner-tenant filed a plea with the learned Appellate Authority for enhancement of period to make deposit aforementioned. One month time was afforded for the purpose aforementioned. Even then, the order was not complied with by the petitioner-tenant. Learned Appellate Authority held that the mere pendency of the amendment plea aforementioned would not, ipso facto, give rise to an inference that the impugned eviction order was invalid. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner- tenant contended that it was fallacious on the part of the learned Rent Controller and learned Appellate Authority to have insisted upon the compliance withorder dated 21.5.2004, without the Civil Revision No. 3098 of 2008 -3- amendment plea having been disposed of. The plea raised is totally devoid of force. The reasoning supportive thereof is as under:- The law on the point was authoritatively laid down by the Apex Court in Rakesh Wadhawan Vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corproation AIR 2002 SC 2004. That proposition of law came to be reiterated by this Court in a Division Bench Judgment dated 7.1.2010 in Civil Revision No.3577 of 2006 (Raj Kumar Vs. Rakesh Kumar). It can safely be culled out from the two judgments aforementioned that a tenant must comply with the order regarding the provisional rent assessment etc. in order evade the eviction. If that order is not complied with, ejectment action has to necessarily follow and that is what was precisely done by the learned Rent Controller and also learned Appellate Authority. Infact, the learned Appellate Authority had been indulgent to the petitioner-tenant in granting enhanced period to the petitioner-tenant to comply with the order aforementioned but he did not comply with that order within enhanced period as well. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. The petitioner- tenant shall have two months time from today to vacate the premises aforementioned. March 25, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE