Civil Revision No. 6665 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 6665 of 2010 Date of Decision: 18.11.2010 Ramesh Kumar alias Meshi …Petitioner Versus Manjit Dass …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) In the above said case, the arguments were heard and the judgment was reserved on 16.11.2010. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner has caused appearance and has made a prayer that the above said revision petition be dismissed as withdrawn, however, sufficient time be granted to the petitioner to make an alternative arrangement. Prayer accepted. The order dated 16.11.2010, whereby the judgment was reserved, is recalled and the case is taken on the Board of this Court. The Registry is directed to update its records. Mahant Braham Muni Dass had inducted the petitioner as tenant in the demised premises at the rate of ` 300 per month. It was further agreed that the rent would be increased after every five years, at Civil Revision No. 6665 of 2010 2 the rate of 10%. In the eviction petition, it was pleaded that the tenant/petitioner was in arrears of rent since April 2001. The tenant/petitioner had caused appearance before the Rent Controller, Dasuya and stated that he had already paid the rent upto March 2003. Furthermore, he was paying the rent of the demised shop to the landlord but no receipt was issued. The Rent Controller, on 25.11.2001, had framed a specific issue as to whether the tenant was in arrears of rent or not. The landlord stated that the rent was ` 300 per month, whereas according to the tenant, it was ` 100 per month. The Rent Controller, vide his order dated 12.1.2007, has concluded that the rate of rent of the demised shop was ` 100 per month and not ` 300 per month. He has further held that there was no condition that the rent would be increased at the rate of 10% after every five years. After returning the findings on these issues, the rent petition was dismissed. Aggrieved against the same, the landlord has filed an appeal. The Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur, vide his order dated 29.7.2010, has accepted the appeal by holding that after the rent was provisionally assessed as ` 200 per month, since 1.4.2001 till the filing of the eviction petition, the tenant/petitioner has not tendered the same. It is stated that even though an opportunity was granted to the tenant, the provisional rent, so assessed, was not paid and learned counsel for the tenant has made the following statement:- “...no rent standing is due against the respondent at the time of filing of the petition. The respondent is Civil Revision No. 6665 of 2010 3 not entitled to tender any rent as such...” The Appellate Authority, while accepting the appeal, has relied upon Rakesh Wadhawan and Others v. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and Others 2002(1), Rent Control Reporter 514, which was duly interpreted by the Division Bench of this Court in Rajan alias Raj Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar 2010 (1) Rent Control Reporter 386. The Appellate Authority has finally concluded as under:- “...Resultantly, this authority is of the view that the learned Rent Controller was wrong in framing the issues on 25.11.2004 and adjourning the case for evidence of the parties to a further date ignoring the fact that the respondent-tenant failed to tender the rent as assessed by the Rent Controller. A valuable right had already accrued in favour of the landlord and the Rent Controller should have proceeded to order ejectment of tenant on this ground following the ratio of Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra)...” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the law laid down in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra) and Rajan alias Raj Kumar's case (supra), he will not be able to dislodge the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority. However, as the petitioner, being a shopkeeper, is having a huge inventory, sufficient time be granted to him to make an alternative arrangement. I find merit in the alternative submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. As prayed, the present revision petition is dismissed as Civil Revision No. 6665 of 2010 4 withdrawn. However, a period of eight months, commencing from 15.12.2010, is granted to the petitioner/tenant to make an alternative arrangement subject to his furnishing an undertaking on or before 15.12.2010 to the Court of Rent Controller, Dasuya that he will hand over the actual physical vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent/landlord by 15.8.2011. The undertaking will also state that the rent due for following months shall be paid on or before 7th of each month. The entire arrears of rent, if any, shall be deposited in the Court of Rent Controller, Dasuya, by 15.12.2010. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge November 18, 2010 “DK”