IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4225 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: July 30, 2009. Kulbir Singh ...Petitioner(s) v. Mrs. Kanwaljit Kaur & Anr. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Surinder Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Pardeep Bedi, Advocate, for the caveator-respondents. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): This revision petition is directed against the order dated 14.2.2008 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises on the ground of non-payment of rent, as well as against the order dated 10.2.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the said eviction order. The undisputed facts are that the demised premises comprising a residential flat No.1002 HIG-L, Sector 45-B, Chandigarh was allotted to Raminder Singh Pahwa by the Chandigarh Housing Board and he was the owner of the flat at the time when the petitioner was inducted as a tenant. Raminder Singh Pahwa has unfortunately expired in June 1997. His widow and minor daughter, namely, the respondents filed the present eviction petition, inter-alia, on the ground that the petitioner has not paid any rent since July 1997 at the agreed rate of Rs.4,000/- per month. It appears that the petitioner disputed the rate of rent. Consequently, the Rent Controller provisionally assessed the rent @ Rs.1500/- per month and directed the petitioner to tender the arrears thereof along with interest @ 6% and cost of Rs.500/-. Despite an opportunity, the petitioner failed to tender the arrears of rent and as a result thereof, the Rent Controller, following the dictum in Rakesh Wadhawan v. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, 2002(1) RCR 514 (SC), passed the eviction order against the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal where he made a futile attempt to deny the relationship of landlord and tenant alleging that he was inducted as a tenant by one Gurpal Singh. The Appellate Authority has repelled that contention and rightly so after observing that late Raminder Singh was admittedly the allottee-cum-owner of the flat, who had inducted the petitioner as a tenant and after his death, the respondents, being his legal heirs, are entitled to claim rent from the petitioner. As the appellate order reveals, the petitioner did not offer the rent even before the Appellate Authority as well. In these circumstances, no case to interfere with the impugned order is made out. Dismissed. July 30, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge