IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.1948 of 2008 Date of Decision:- 31.03.2008 M/s Guru Granth Sahib Sewa Mission (Regd.) & another ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.R.S.Bassi, Advocate vs. Mrs.Dalip Kaur Brar ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the 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 petitioners are aggrieved at the order dated 14.12.2007 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh as well as the orders dated 7.1.2008 and 18.2.2008 passed by the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh. In terms of the impugned orders, the petitioners have been ordered to be evicted from the residential premises bearing house No.2535, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh. The facts may be noticed briefly. The petitioners were inducted as tenants by the respondent- landlady in the above-stated premises. The respondent filed an eviction petition primarily on the ground of non-payment of rent. While the respondent claimed the rent at the rate of Rs.28,000/- per month, the petitioners disputed the said rate of rent. The Rent Controller, Chandigarh C.R.No.1948 of 2008 -2- vide his order dated 14.11.2007 determined the provisional rent at the rate of Rs.19,000/- per month and directed the petitioners to deposit the same with effect from 1.6.2005 “ till the filing of the petition” and further till the passing of the said order. The petitioners, however, failed to deposit the arrears of rent and as a consequence thereto, an eviction order was passed against them by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh vide his impugned order dated 14.12.2007. Aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority-cum District Judge, Chandigarh, who, vide his order dated 7.1.2008 stayed the eviction of the petitioners, however, subject to the condition that they shall deposit rent “upto date” within one month in the Court of the Rent Controller and shall keep on depositing “the subsequent rent of each month by 7th of that month and shall also furnish security within the said period.........” It is, however, apparent from the records that the petitioners were not willing to pay the rent, therefore, on 7.2.2008, they moved an application for modification of the above-mentioned order dated 7.1.2008. They, however, attached three demand drafts of the even date along with their application towards part payment of the arrears of rent. In the aforesaid application, the petitioners admitted the fact that they were unable to pay the arrears of rent and sought one month's more time to arrange the money. The Appellate Authority, however, has dismissed the petitioner's application for extension of time and has held that since they have failed to deposit the arrears of rent within the stipulated period, C.R.No.1948 of 2008 -3- no further indulgence can be granted to them. Assailing the above- mentioned orders, the petitioners have preferred this revision petition. As the facts would speak for themselves, the petitioners have been adopting one or the other delaying tactics in order to wriggle out of their liability to pay the arrears of rent. Firstly, they contended that since the arrears of rent were demanded by the respondent with effect from 1.11.2005, they could not be asked by the Rent Controller to tender the same with effect from 1.6.2005. Be that as it may, the Appellate Authority vide order dated 7.1.2008 granted them stay and permitted the petitioners to pay the rent within a period of one month. Had there been any bona- fide intention to pay the rent, the petitioners could deposit the same without prejudice to their rights and any excess payment, if any, could very well be adjusted against the future rent. However, instead of depositing the arrears of rent, they sought extension of time and wanted to deposit only part of the arrears of rent. If one reads the application moved by the petitioners for extension of time, it can be safely inferred that before the Appellate Authority, they coined a new objection against payment of rent for the subsequent period by 7th of every calendar month. The petitioners presumably wanted to suggest that they could be directed to pay the arrears of rent till the filing of the ejectment petition only and not for the subsequent period. In these circumstances when either the petitioners are unable to pay the rent due to lack of funds or they deliberately don't want to pay the C.R.No.1948 of 2008 -4- same, no case to interfere with the impugned orders in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is made out. Dismissed. March 31, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE