CR No.756 of 2010 -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.756 of 2010 Date of decision:04.04.2011. Sanjeet Singh ...Petitioner Vs. Mohali Motor Finance Co. and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harminderjit Singh, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) The question of law involved in this revision petition is as to “whether the tenant is liable to be evicted on the ground of not tendering the provisional rent assessed by the Rent Controller on the stipulated date or the Rent Controller has the jurisdiction to extend the time for that purpose? In brief, the landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short “the Act”] seeking eviction of the respondents/tenants from the second floor (front portion) of SCO No.33, Sector 41-D, Chandigarh (measuring about 510 Sq. Ft.). It was alleged that the tenants were inducted in the demised premises vide lease deed dated 01.07.2005 but they remained in arrears of rent, as a result of which, their eviction was sought, inter alia, on the ground of non-payment of rent. The learned Rent Controller, vide its order dated 22.01.2009, assessed the provisional rent by calculating it w.e.f. November, 2007 till date @ `5,250/- per month alongwith interest @ 6% per annum and costs of `200/- and directed the CR No.756 of 2010 -2- ***** tenants to tender it on 24.02.2009. On 24.02.2009, the following order was passed by the learned Rent Controller: - “Present: Sh. Rajesh Khurana, Cl. for the petitioner. Sh. Aman Kashayap, Cl. for the respondent. **** Rent not tendered. Adjournment prayed. Now to come up on 02.03.2009 for payment of rent. Sd/- CJ/RC/24.2.09.” On the next date of hearing, i.e. 02.03.2009, both counsel for the parties suffered their respective statements, which are as under: - “Statement of Sh. Manish Joshi, Advocate, Counsel for respondent. I tender a sum of `89,250/- as rent for the period from November 2007 to March 2009 @ `5,250/- per month, interest of `7,590/- and costs of `200/-, total amounting to `97,040/- plus the rent form the month of April 2009, i.e. total amounting to `1,02,209/- as assessed by this Hon'ble Court, on 22.01.2009. RO&AC. Sd/- CJ/RC/02.03.2009.” “Statement of Sh. Rajesh Khurana, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner. I receive the rent under strong protest as the rent as assessed was not tendered on the date of payment as fixed by the Hon'ble Court. The rent is accepted under protest being not competent which is being paid on this date of hearing. It is also protested on the ground of being invalid. The rent is also being accepted without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to challenge the said tender before the Hon'ble High Court having not been made on the stipulated date. RO&AC. Sd/- CJ/RC/02.03.2009.” Thereafter, the learned Rent Controller passed the following order on 02.03.2009: - CR No.756 of 2010 -3- ***** “Present: Sh. Rajesh Khurana, Cl. for the petitioner. Sh. Manish Joshi, Cl. for the respondent. ***** Counsel for respondent tendered rent and the same has been accepted/received by the counsel for petitioner. Statement of both the counsel to that effect recorded separately. Heard. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues are framed: - 1. Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted fro the premises in dispute as prayed for?OPP. 2. Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted from the premises in dispute on the ground of non- payment of arrears of rent?OPP. 3. Whether the premises in question is required by the petitioner for personal use and occupation?OPP. 4. Whether the petitioner has concealed the material facts from the Court?OPP. 5. Whether the present petition is not maintainable?OPP. 6. Relief. No other issue is pressed or claimed or arises. Now to come up on 09.05.2009 for evidence of the petitioner. PF, DM, list of witnesses etc. be filed within 7 days. Sd/- Sudhir Parmar/CJ/RC/02.03.2009.” Aggrieved against the order dated 24.02.2009 by which the time was extended by the learned Rent Controller for the purpose of tender of rent up to 02.03.2009, the present revision petition was filed in which notice of motion was issued on 04.02.2010 with the following observations: - “Argues, inter alia, that the respondent – tenant not having paid the provisionally assessed rent etc. on the first date of hearing, the learned Rent Controller was not justified in granting any further date. The CR No.756 of 2010 -4- ***** eviction, the argument proceeds, was the only compulsive follow up in case of the non-payment of the provisionally assessed rent etc., on the first date of hearing. Notice of motion. 30.03.2010.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to extend the time for the purpose of tendering the provisionally assessed rent beyond the date fixed by him at the time of the assessment of provisional rent. He further submitted that earlier there was a divergent view of this Court in the case of Rajinder Lal V. Gopal Krishan (2006-2) P.L.R. 124 and in the case of Madan Lal and another V. Baldev Raj, (2004-2) P.L.R. 834, which were referred to the Division Bench of this Court in CR No.3577 of 2006 titled as 'Rajan alias Raj Kumar V. Rakesh Kumar' in which the view taken by this Court in the case of Madan Lal and another's case (supra) has been approved on the basis of a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan V. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation 2002 AIR (SC) 2004. It is now held that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to extend the period of time for the purpose of tender of rent and if the provisionally assessed rent is not tendered on the stipulated date (first date of hearing), then the eviction would automatically follow. Faced with the aforesaid argument, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the order dated 24.02.2009 was not passed in the Court, but there is nothing on record from which it could be found that the learned Rent Controller had extended the time only for this reason. In fact, the impugned order dated 24.02.2009 is only of two lines in which the learned Rent Controller observed that the rent was not tendered, adjournment prayed and now to come up on 02.03.2009 for payment of rent. It is pertinent to mention here that on 02.03.2009, when the provisionally assessed rent was tendered by the tenants, the landlord had specifically urged that he is receiving the tendered rent under protest as it was not tendered by the tenants on the stipulated date which was fixed for this purpose by the learned Rent Controller. CR No.756 of 2010 -5- ***** I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record with their able assistance. It is now well settled by this Court that in view of the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Rajan alias Raj Kumar's case (supra), following the decision of the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra), the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to extend the period of time for tendering of provisionally assessed rent without any reason. In the present case, the learned Rent Controller has assessed the provisional rent on 22.01.2009 to be paid by the tenants on 24.02.2010, but the tenants failed to deposit the rent within the stipulated period and for that matter Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to extent the time for tendering of the provisionally assessed rent. Learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that the case is at its fag end as the entire evidence has been concluded, however, it is disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the tenants have filed only their affidavits in their examination-in-chief. Be that as it may, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra) and followed by the Division Bench of this Court in Rajan alias Raj Kumar's case (supra), the question of law, which has been framed in the beginning of the judgment, is answered in favour of the petitioner/landlord by observing that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to extend the period of time for the purpose of tendering provisionally assessed rent without there being any reason. In view of the above, the present revision petition is allowed. April 4, 2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge