Civil Revision No.5037 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5037 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:.20.12.2011 Anup Singh ....Petitioner Versus Darshan Kumar ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Arun Dogra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, Advocate for the respondent. * * * RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL) This is tenant's revision petition challenging the impugned order of eviction dated 12.11.2010 of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh and also the judgment dated 03.05.2011 of the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, dismissing his appeal against the aforesaid order. Shorn of unnecessary details, it is suffice to say that eviction of the petitioner has been ordered from the demised premises for non-payment of arrears of rent. Admittedly, assessment of the provisional rent was made by the Rent Controller on 05.10.2010 and the petitioner failed to tender the aforesaid provisionally assessed rent on the first date of hearing i.e. 12.11.2010. Resultantly, the Rent Controller had no option but to pass the eviction order against the petitioner. In the appeal filed before the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, the petitioner has taken a stand that the brother of the petitioner had died on Civil Revision No.5037 of 2011 (O&M) 2 10.9.2010 and the petitioner had gone to his native village for funeral and last rites, due to which he could not appear in Court on 12.11.2010 and even mother of the petitioner who had fallen ill was hospitalised till 28.11.2010 and during this period petitioner could not contact his counsel and the Rent Controller has failed to adjust the amount spent by the petitioner for the renovation of the house in dispute. Noticing the fact that the petitioner has not challenged the order of assessment of provisional rent in any manner, the plea of the petitioner was not accepted. It may also be noticed at this stage that in ground No.5 of this revision petition, the petitioner has taken a specific plea that his counsel had not informed him about the date of proceedings before the Court and he had come to know about the same after passing of the eviction order. Interestingly, before the Appellate Authority the petitioner had taken somehow different ground that he had informed his counsel that he was ready and willing to tender the rent in Court. Be that as it may be, law is very well settled. In case of non-tendering of provisional rent, eviction order has to follow in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rakesh Wadhawan vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation AIR 2006 Supreme Court 2004, and in the case of Rajan @ Raj Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar 2010(2) Rent Law Reporter 381. Thus, I find no merit in this revision petition. Dismissed. December 20, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) savita JUDGE Civil Revision No.5037 of 2011 (O&M) 3