CR No. 5195 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CR No. 5195 of 2008 Date of decision March 18, 2009 Hardeep Singh ....... Petitioner Versus Rajesh Jatana ........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Sudhir Pruthi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G. S. Sandhawalia, Advocate with Mr. Deepak Sabharwal, Advocate. **** 1. Whether reporters of 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? K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The order impugned in the revision is the order directing the tenant to pay Rs.2,500/- per month along with costs of Rs.500/-. The order was passed on 11.6.2007 and it was directed to come up on 7.8.2007 for tendering the rent. Admittedly, the amount was not tendered on 7.8.2007. 2. The revision petitioner contends before this Court that the directions of the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan Vs Jagdamba Industrial Corporation 2002 HRR 367 was not fully followed. In that case there was no direction for payment of interest. The reference of payment of interest is a matter really in the nature of an additional benefit for a landlord and such if such a direction was not issued, the aggrieved person could be only the landlord and not the tenant. The tenant CR No. 5195 of 2008 2 is bound to make payment within the time specified and the failure of such deposit would result in the consequence of a summary ejectment and it cannot be stalled by un-reasonable plea that the direction for interest was not there and therefore, the amount could not be deposited. 3. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that there is an amount of Rs.50,000/- already in deposit with the landlord which was liable to be adjusted but to a pointed question whether there was any proof of such deposit, the counsel only responds by saying that he will tender such proof if opportunity is given during the course of trial. At the stage of provisional assessment, the Court makes on the basis of materials already available and if the tenant had not tendered any proof for payment of Rs.50,000/- as advance, then nothing further remained. A mere statement that an additional amount of Rs.50,000/- was available with the landlord is no proof at the interlocutory stage. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to certain decisions of this Court in Sham Sunder Vs. Smt. Ram Devi through L.Rs 200(1) RCR 252, Tirlok Chand Saxena Vs. Sant Lal Dhawan reported in 2003 HRR 7, and Sunder Krishan Vs. Murari Lal reported in 2003 HRR 272 to bring weight to his contention that the failure to give direction for payment of interest would amount to failure of a Rent Controller to follow the directions of the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra). The principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court could not be stretched to such an artificial construct which learned counsel for the petitioner wants to place on it. The only principle at could be discerned from out of the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is if there is no direction for payment of interest or costs along with directions for arrears of rent, the tenant cannot be compelled to make either interest or costs unless the landlord had challenged the same CR No. 5195 of 2008 3 by way of revision. The tenant who fails to pay even the rent which was directed to deposit by the Court cannot rally round and state by such failure of the Rent Controller to stipulate the payment of interest, he should also be absolved from even his liability to pay the rent. Such an argument is plainly illogical and betrays a proper understanding of the judgment of the Supreme Court. Accordingly I reject the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. The Civil revision petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 18, 2009 archana