IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3700 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 21.10.2009 Anil Vohra .....Petitioner versus Manjit Singh and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Baldev Raj Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Ashok Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent. -.- 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? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This revision petition is preferred by the tenant who has been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises comprising Booth No.388, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh, by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh vide order dated 12.2.2007, on the ground of non-payment of arrears of provisionally assessed rent and whose appeal against the aforestated order of the Rent Controller, has also been dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, vide the impugned judgment dated 3.6.2009. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the petitioner did not tender the arrears of rent, provisionally assessed by the Rent Controller C.R. No.3700 of 2009 (O&M) 2 despite opportunity and has incurred the consequences of eviction in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan and others versus M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and others, 2003 (2) Civil Court Cases 361 (SC). Notice of motion was issued and thereafter, in order to test his bonafide, the petitioner-tenant was directed vide order dated 29.7.2009, to bring the arrears of provisionally assessed rent. Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner who has already been ordered to be evicted due to non-payment of provisionally assessed arrears of rent by the Rent Controller, he is not inclined to make payment of those arrears. In other words, the petitioner- tenant has no intention to pay the arrears of rent and he wants to enjoy the premises dis-honestly even without paying the rent. In this view of the matter, no interference in the impugned orders is called for by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. 21-10-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE