CIVIL REVISION NO.3972 OF 2002 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 24, 2008 Sat Pal .....Petitioner VERSUS Sadhu Singh ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Ms. Naina Goel & Mr. B. R. Mahajan, Advocates, for the petitioner. Mr. Anish Batish, Advocate and Mr. Sudeep Mahajan, Advocate, for the respondent. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner-tenant, who has been ordered to be evicted on the ground of arrears of rent, has filed this revision petition to impugn the order of his eviction. When this revision petition came up for hearing before this Court on 9.8.2002, the Court noticed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that no opportunity was given to him to pay the rent. Relying upon the ratio of law laid down in Rakesh Wadhawan and others Vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial CIVIL REVISION NO.3972 OF 2002 :{ 2 }: Corporation and others, 2002 (1) RCR 514, notice of motion was issued and eviction of the petitioner was stayed. The submission obviously was that the petitioner would be required to be given an opportunity to deposit rent after making provisional assessment thereof in terms of Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra). Noticing the fact that sole ground of eviction of the petitioner-tenant was non-payment of arrears of rent, the matter was deferred for hearing to await the decision in Civil Revision No.1474 of 1988, where the issue was pending for adjudication in regard to the procedure required to be adopted for giving opportunity to the tenant to pay arrears of rent in terms of the ratio of law laid down in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra). The Civil Revision No.1474 of 1988 was referred to Full Bench, which has now held that reference would not survive in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in view of Vinod Kumar Vs. Prem Lata, AIR 2003 Supreme Court 3854. The Revision Petition No.1474 of 1988 was accordingly directed to be placed before the Single Bench for decision. Single Bench of this Court has now allowed the revision petition and had remanded the case back to the Rent Controller with a direction that Rent Controller should determine the arrears of rent alongwith interest payable thereon and the costs required to be paid by the tenant and then to afford opportunity to the tenant to make tender of the rent. This has been held by making reference to the ratio of law laid down in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan (supra). There is not much in dispute between the parties that the case has now to go back to Rent Controller for making an assessment of the rent payable and then to give an opportunity to the CIVIL REVISION NO.3972 OF 2002 :{ 3 }: petitioner-tenant to tender the rent which is so found due. The revision petition, as such, is allowed. The eviction order passed against the petitioner-tenant is set-aside and the case is remanded back to the Rent Controller. The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 20.5.2008. The Rent Controller shall determine the arrears of rent alongwith interest payable thereon and the costs which are required to be paid by the tenant after fixing the date of hearing for the said purpose upon due notice to the parties. Needless to mention that Rent Controller shall provide opportunity to the tenant-petitioner for tendering the rent, which is found due. It goes without saying that the Rent Controller would be at liberty to pass the order of eviction in case the petitioner fails to tender the rent which is found due. To be fair to the counsel representing the parties, it may need a notice that Mr.Sudeep Mahajan, representing the respondents, sought some direction for expeditious disposal of the case, whereas Mr.B.R.Mahajan, representing the petitioner, would seek some direction for the Rent Controller to decide the other issues, which were raised in the revision petition. Since the case is pending for quite sometime, it will be for the Rent Controller to see and decide the case within a reasonable time, ofcourse depending upon his convenience. If the petitioner is entitled to raise any other plea under law, he would be at liberty to so urge before the Rent Controller and for that no specific direction are to be given. April 24,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE