Civil Revision No. 3895 of 2008 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3895 of 2008 Date of decision : 3.3.2010 Dharminder Petitioner Versus Surinder Pal Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Malkiat Mann, Advocate for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. The respondent-landlord applied for the eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the tenanted premises on a plea of the latter being in arrears of rent and also on an averment that tenanted premises had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The latter item of grievance was answered against the respondent- landlord and that finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller was affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority. The finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller about the petitioner-tenant being in arrears of rent was affirmed in appeal. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that the reliance placed by the Courts aforementioned upon the fact of the petitioner herein having paid excess rent in an earlier Civil Revision No. 3895 of 2008 -2- *** eviction proceeding had been inappropriately relied upon to record a finding on point of quantification of the payable rent. The plea deserves a dismissive frown. The petitioner- tenant had paid rent at the enhanced rate in the earlier eviction proceedings. It was a pure and simple unconditional tender. The petitioner-tenant did not indicate that the making the tender under protest or that the tenant had any reservation about the rate at which the rent had been claimed. It is neither here nor there for the learned counsel for the petitioner to argue that the petitioner would have applied for the refund of the excess amount within the period of limitation. Though there can be no dispute with the proposition that a party entitled to raise a claim for refund within the period prescribed under limitation can very well do so within that time, it cannot be denied that the payment of rent at the enhanced rate was unconditional and the rent at the enhanced rate had been paid in accordance with the stipulation in the rent note Ex. A-1 itself. The fact that the rent note aforementioned is an unregistered document also does not benefit the petitioner in view of the fact that it was he only who made the tender unconditionally. While disposing of the appeal, the Appellate Authority had granted 45 days time to the petitioner to deposit the arrears thereafter. While issuing notice of motion, a Coordinate Bench (Mahesh Grover, J.) of this Court restrained the dispossession of the petitioner from the tenanted premises subject to the deposit of the amount of rent, as assessed by the learned Rent Controller and Civil Revision No. 3895 of 2008 -3- *** affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority within two weeks, from the date of order and a further condition that the petitioner-tenant shall continue to pay rent at the rate determined by the learned Rent Controller for the subsequent period by the 7th of each month. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant wants to place on record that the order granted by the Appellate Authority and also a Coordinate Bench of this Court had been complied with. That factual state is not contested on behalf of the party opposite. The factual position noticed in the preceding para notwithstanding, it is apparent that there is enough warrant for affirming the finding that the petitioner-tenant was liable to pay rent as the rent tender had been unconditionally made in the earlier rent petition and that the tender made in the present petition was deficit as it was not in accord therewith. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petitioner is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. March 03, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE