C.R. No.4612 of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CASE NO.: C.R. No.4612 of 2003 DATE OF DECISION: May 21, 2009 PAWAN KUMAR ...PETITIONER VERSUS KIDAR NATH ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. PRESENT: MR. B.R. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER. MR. MANISH BANSAL, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL) The landlord filed an application for eviction of the tenant (petitioner) on the ground of non-payment of rent under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. It was the case of the landlord that the premises in dispute which was one room situated at Achru Ram Kapur Factory, Rampura Phul was rented out to the tenant Pawan Kumar on rent of Rs.5000/- per annum. The amount of rent was disputed by the tenant who stated that the premises had been taken out on rent by him @ Rs.200/- per month and that the rent stands paid. The Rent Controller, Phul vide his judgement dated 16.4.2003, dismissed the application for eviction on the ground that the tender of rent is valid. The landlord challenged the findings of the Rent Controller, Phul by filing an appeal which has been allowed by the appellate authority vide judgement dated 15.9.2003, on the ground that the tenant has not paid the rent @ Rs.200/- per month from 10.7.1994 to 31.12.1999. Thus, as the C.R. No.4612 of 2003 -2- tender made by the tenant was short, therefore, he was ordered to be evicted. In the present revision, counsel for the petitioner submits that the tenant has tendered the entire rent @ Rs.200/- which has been held by the Rent Controller and therefore, in view of the judgement in Rakesh Wadhawan vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, reported as 2002(1) RCR (Rent) 514, the shortfall in the tender got allowed to be made up. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has already deposited the tender for the defaulting period from 10.7.1994 upto 31.12.1999, before the Rent Controller. The tendering of rent before the Rent Controller for the aforementioned period is not denied by the counsel for the landlord. However, counsel for the landlord submits that there is no documentary proof on record to show that rent was Rs.200/- and not Rs.5000/-. Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that no cross appeal or cross-objections have been filed by the landlord to claim that rent was Rs.5000/- per annum. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the Rent Controller has already held that rent of demised premises was Rs.200/- per month. Thus, this Court is left with no other option but to accept the finding of the Rent Controller which has been upheld by the appellate authority as far as the rate of rent is concerned. Moreover, now the tenant has already deposited the rent for the aforementioned period and therefore, in view of Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra) this rent revision filed by the tenant has to be allowed as the rent has been tendered before the Rent Controller. C.R. No.4612 of 2003 -3- Resultantly, the judgement passed by the appellate authority 15.9.2003, is set aside and the judgement of Rent Controller is upheld. There shall be no order as to costs. May 21, 2009 (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) Gulati JUDGE