Civil Revision No. 1704 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No. 1704 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:- 16.03.2011 Ashok Kumar ....Petitioner Vs. Kiranjit Kaur ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ****** Present:- Mr. Sukhjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against order of the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, dated 31.07.2010, which has been upheld by the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, vide its order dated 09.11.2010 and the tenant has been ordered to vacate the demised premises (shop), inter alia, on account of non-payment of rent. In brief, the learned Rent Controller assessed the provisional rent vide his order dated 31.05.2010 to the tune of ` 3,31,783/-, which was ordered to be paid on 31.07.2010. The rent was not tendered as ordered. Therefore, on the same date, eviction order was passed. The petitioner-tenant filed Civil Revision No.5330 of 2010 before this Court in order to assail the orders dated 31.05.2010 and 31.07.2010 by signing the power of attorney in favour of Shri Parminderjeet Singh Khurana, Advocate. The said revision petition was filed on 20.08.2010, which was Civil Revision No. 1704 of 2011 (O&M) 2 listed for the first time on 24.08.2010. But on that date, on the request of his counsel, it was adjourned to 25.08.2010. On the adjourned date, it was withdrawn and the following order was passed:- “Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 31.05.2010 passed by learned Rent Controller, thereby assessing the rent. After arguing some time, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition at this stage. Dismissed as withdrawn. However, it is clarified that all the points can be raised at the time of final decision of the petition.” It appears from the aforesaid order that the eviction order had already been passed and factum of passing of that order was not brought to the notice of this Court. In any case, the petitioner then filed statutory appeal under Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act , 1949 (in short 'the Act') on 15.09.2010, which was dismissed on 09.11.2010, which led to the filing of the present petition in which the sole argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was kept in dark by his Advocate Mr. Gurpreet Singh, practising at District Courts, Ludhiana, as he did not inform him about the order dated 31.07.2010, otherwise, he would have tendered the arrears of rent as directed by the Rent Controller. He also submits that he had not filed any revision in this Court himself, rather revision was filed by the said Advocate (Mr. Gurpreet Singh) on his own. He only came to know about the revision i.e. Civil Revision No. 5330 of 2010 when he filed the present revision petition, meaning thereby he had not engaged Shri P.S. Khurana, Advocate, to pursue his Civil Revision No. 1704 of 2011 (O&M) 3 revision (CR No.5330 of 2010) before this Court, which was withdrawn by him. He also admits that no action has been taken either on the civil side or the criminal side or in the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana High Court against Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate, for his misconduct. Learned counsel for the petitioner has persuaded this Court to believe the story, which has been put forward by him, in order to seek one more opportunity to tender the provisional rent to save his possession. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the available record, from which I have found that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. The Civil Revision No.5330 of 2010 was filed with a power of attorney duly signed by the petitioner. Moreover, he had no courage to make any complaint against the practising Advocate, who according to him, has duped him by not disclosing the order dated 31.05.2010 and by engaging an Advocate in the High Court for the purpose of filing the civil revision without his consent. Had the petitioner been hurt by the misconduct of his Advocate Mr. Gurpreet Singh, he could have at least lodged a complaint to the Bar Association, of which he is a Member. But, no such action has been taken by the petitioner. Thus, in my view, there is no truth in the story which has been projected before this Court. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 16th of March, 2011 JUDGE ajp