IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 1262 of 1987. [O&M] Date of Decision: 21st July, 2009. Sarbjit Singh Petitioner through Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate Versus Gurcharan Singh Respondent through None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) The petitioner – tenant is aggrieved at the orders dated 28.11.1984 passed by the Rent Controller, Amritsar on the ground of non-payment of rent, as well as dated 21.3.1987 of the Appellate Authority, dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the said eviction order. The impugned orders reveal that the respondent – landlord sought the petitioner's eviction on the grounds that [i] he has not paid the arrears of rent w.e.f. 10.1.1974 @ Rs.35/- per month and [ii] that the premises was required by him for his personal use and occupation. The petitioner – tenant contested the landlord's claim and averred that the rate of rent was Rs.20/- per month and he had already paid the rent prior to 1.1.1980. The Rent Controller though turned down the second ground of eviction, however, on the first ground held that the petitioner was liable to pay rent @ Rs.35/- per month and that he had failed to prove that the rent had been paid before 1.1.1980. The eviction order was accordingly passed. The petitioner – tenant preferred an appeal which also met with the same fate. The Appellate Authority also made certain observations on Issue No. 2, namely, personal necessity of the landlord. The solitary contention raised on behalf of the petitioner – tenant is that after rejecting the petitioner's plea regarding the rate of rent or holding that he was in arrears of rent, it was imperative upon the Rent Controller to assess the arrears of rent, interest and costs and thereafter grant an opportunity to the petitioner to tender the same. No such procedure has been followed. He has placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan & Ors. V M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation & Ors., [2002] 5 SCC, 440. It may be mentioned here that vide order dated 29.10.2002, this case was ordered to be heard along with Civil Revision No. 1424 of 1988 which in turn was referred to a Larger Bench to resolve the purported conflict in the two decisions in [i]M/s Rubber House v M/s Excellsior Needle Industries Pvt. Ltd., JT 1989[4] SC, 488 and [ii] Rajinder Kumar Joshi v Veena Rani, JT 1990[4] SC, 50. The Full Bench vide its order dated 9.5.2007 disposed of the reference after observing that in view of the later Supreme Court decision in Vinod Kumar Versus Prem Lata, AIR 2003 SC, 3854 affirming its view in Rakesh Wadhawan's case [supra], the question which was referred to the Larger Bench, no longer survived. Civil Revision No. 1474 of 1988, wherein an identical controversy had arisen for consideration, has been allowed by a Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 4.7.2007 to the extent that after setting aside the eviction order, the matter was remanded to the Rent Controller with a direction to determine the arrears of rent along with interest payable thereupon and thereafter to grant one opportunity to the petitioner – tenant to make tender of such arrears, as has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan's case [supra]. For the reasons stated above, the revision petition is allowed, the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remanded to the Rent Controller, Amritsar with a direction to decide both the issues afresh, in accordance with law. In case it is held that the petitioner is liable to pay arrears of rent, he shall be granted an opportunity to tender the same and if the petitioner tenders the arrears of rent within the time granted, no order of eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent shall be passed. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that no fresh instructions have been received by him from the petitioner. The respondent has also gone un-represented. It is quite possible that during the long pendency of this revision petition, the controversy no longer survives. Consequently, while remanding the case, the Rent Controller is directed to issue notice to both the parties and then proceed with the matter, if so required. Disposed of accordingly. July 21, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE