Civil Revision No.3699 of 1985 & 1999, 2000 of 1986 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3699 of 1985 (O&M) Date of decision:28.01.2009 Tejinder Singh (deceased) through LRs .............. Petitioner Vs. Vilati Ram .............Respondent 2. Civil Revision No.1999 of 1986 Tejinder Singh (deceased) through LRs .............. Petitioner Vs. Babu Ram .............Respondent 3. Civil Revision No.2000 of 1986 Tejinder Singh (deceased) through LRs .............. Petitioner Vs. Ram Gopal .............Respondent Present: Mr. Harminder Singh, Advocate for Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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 three connected petitions are filed at the instance of the same landlord against three different tenants in respect of three independent shops. The grounds of eviction in all the cases were the same: non-payment of rent, personal requirement of the landlord, change of user of the premises and material alteration that impaired the utility and value of the building. 2. In regard to the case in C.R. No.3699 of 1985, the Rent Controller dismissed the petition finding all the grounds against the landlord and the appeal filed by the landlord with an application to condone the delay Civil Revision No.3699 of 1985 & 1999, 2000 of 1986 (O&M) -2- of seven days was dismissed and consequently the order of Rent Controller was confirmed even without entering upon the merits of the case. In the subject matter of the cases in C.R. No.1999 of 1986 and C.R. No.2000 of 1986 all the four grounds as detailed above were again urged by the landlord and except on the ground of non-payment of rent all other grounds were found against the landlord but as regards non-payment of rent, the Rent Controller found that the period of non-payment from six months as urged by the landlord was not correct but directed that arrears stood only for a period of four months. 3. The Rent Controller found that the tender of rent to the son did not constitute valid payment and ordered eviction of the tenants in respect of the property which are the subject matter in C.R. No.1999 and 2000 of 1986. The Appellate Authority reversed the respective findings by holding that the tender to the son constituted a valid tender and set aside the orders of eviction. 4. The counsel for the revision petitioner strenuously contends that the order of rejection in appeal in C.R. No.3699 of 1985 even without consideration on merits but refusing to condone the delay of seven days was not justified. I have no hesitation to find that the rejection otherwise on merits was not appropriate but having regard to the fact that the matter relates to revisions of the year 1985, I had rather examined whether there was anything available for consideration on merit. The Rent Controller rejected all the grounds urged by the landlord for eviction by a well reasoned order and there is no scope for interference. Even as regards the other cases in C.R. No.1999 and 2000 of 1986, the only surviving ground for eviction is non-payment of rent for a period of two months which the Appellate Court found as duly explained in favour of the tenant by observing that rent paid to the landlord's son constituted valid tender. I do not think anything survives Civil Revision No.3699 of 1985 & 1999, 2000 of 1986 (O&M) -3- for favourable consideration in favour of the landlord. 5. The learned counsel submits that the tenants have not paid any rent at all for the period when the cases have been pending. Unfortunately for him the tenants are not represented through counsel before this Court or at least the counsel on record is not before this Court for appearance when the matter is called. The landlord will have his own right to action for eviction, if so advised, by independent proceedings for non-payment that have arisen subsequent to the filing of the petition. Granting such liberty, all the revision petitions are dismissed. (K. KAANAN) JUDGE January 28, 2009 Pankaj*