CR No.2681 of 2011 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. * * * CR No.2681 of 2011 (O&M) Decided on 25.5.2011 Harinder Singh -- Petitioner vs. Daljinder Kaur --Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present Mr.B.S.Sewak, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.H.S.Dhandi,Advocate,for the respondent Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, (Oral) Tenant is in revision. By virtue of the impugned order, he has been asked to vacate First Floor of House No.1832/1, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Housing Complex Cooperative House Building Society Ltd, Mohali. In short, the landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, 'the Act') on the ground of non-payment of rent. On 27.7.2009, learned Rent Controller, Mohali, assessed the provisional rent @ `4000/- per month CR No.2681 of 2011 (O&M) 2 w.e.f. 1.7.2008 till the date of filing of the eviction petition along-with interest @ 6% and costs of ` 300/- which was ordered to be paid by the tenant to the landlord on 18.9.2009. On 18.9.2009, the Rent Controller passed the following order:- “ No PW is present. Date is requested. File be put up on 15.10.2009 for entire evidence of the petitioner as well as for tendering as per previous order”. On 15.10.2009, the Court recorded an order that “it has come to my notice that the respondent has already moved an application for review of order dated 27.7.2009 which is also fixed for today. The same is ordered to be attached with this file. Now to come up on 9.11.2009 for filing reply of that application and for consideration”. On 9.11.2009, reply was filed. Copy given. Case was adjourned to 23.11.2009 for consideration. Thereafter, it was adjourned for consideration of the application which was ultimately dismissed on 31.3.2010 and the Court passed the following order:- “Arguments on application for reviewing the order dated 27.7.2009 heard. Vide my separate and detailed order of even date, the same is dismissed. Now file be put up on 12.4.2010 for tendering the rent as last opportunity”. Instead of 12.4.2010, the file was taken up on 10.4.2010 as the Court was on leave and the matter was adjourned to 21.5.2010 and then to 14.6.2010. On 14.6.2010, the respondent had moved an application for an adjournment for tendering the rent and the case was adjourned to 15.6.2010 for further proceedings. On that date, the tenant moved an application for depositing the arrears of rent but the CR No.2681 of 2011 (O&M) 3 petitioner refused to accept. As the Court time was over, the case was adjourned to 16.7.2010 for further proceedings. On 16.7.2010, reply was filed and the case was adjourned to 21.7.2010. On that date, the Court was on leave and the matter was adjourned to 24.7.2010 on which date the Court recorded the following order:- “Present: Sh. Gurdev Saini and Sh. Navin Saini, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner. Sh. Amarjit Singh Longia, Advocate. Counsel for the respondent. The facts of the present petition are that the petitioner filed rent petition and after hearing the arguments provisional rent was assessed, however, the respondent moved an application for reviewing the order of provisional assessment but on 31.03.2010 the said application was dismissed and date for tendering of the provisional rent was fixed for 12.04.2010, but on 12.04.2010 the undersigned was on leave, then the matter was adjourned for 21.05.2010, but on 21.05.2010 the undersigned on leave, therefore, the matter was adjourned to 14.06.2010. On 14.06.2010 the respondent moved an application for adjournment for tendering of provisional rent, then the matter was adjourned to 15.06.2010. On 15.06.2010, the respondent moved an application for tendering of the amount as assessment in provisional rent, but on the same date, the petitioner refused to accept the same, however the matter was adjourned to 16.07.2010 as the court time was over. On 16.07.2010 reply by the petitioner filed and matter was postponed to 19.07.2010, but on 19.07.2010 the undersigned was on leave and matter was postponed to 24.07.2010. Today i.e. 24.07.2010, the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner argued that once the provisional rent is assessed and date is fixed for tendering of amount, then the time cannot be extended, therefore, the respondent failed to tender the amount on the fixed date, so the eviction order be passed. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondent argued that the respondent was ever ready to tender the amount on the fixed date, however, the Rent Controller was on leave therefore, the respondent is not at fault for tendering the amount. He further argued that the Rent Controller, can extend the time for making tender of provisional rent. CR No.2681 of 2011 (O&M) 4 I have heard ld. Counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully, keeping in view the facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, as the respondent has shown his willingness to tender the amount, therefore, one opportunity is granted to the respondent to tender the amount along with interest and cost in the court itself within four working days from today i.e. 24.07.2010, put up on 28.07.2010 for tendering of rent and for further proceedings”. The Rent Controller, thus, granted one more opportunity to the tenant to tender the rent on 28.7.2010. On that date, the tenant did not tender the rent and had rather moved an application in which he had alleged that though the Court had ordered on 24.7.2010 for tendering the rent today in Court, but he had no knowledge about it as he came to know today only regarding the said order and requires some time to deposit it. The learned Rent Controller passed an order on 28.7.2010:- “Rent not tendered despite last and final opportunity. Order for tendering the rent was passed on 27.7.2009 and since then many opportunities have been granted to the respondent for tendering rent and today is also the last and final opportunity. No ground for grant of further adjournment is made out for this purpose. Consequently, arguments on main petition heard. Vide my separate and detailed order of event date, the ejectment order against respondent is passed. Memo of cost be prepared and file be consigned to the record room”. Thereafter, order of eviction which was separately passed by the Rent Controller was challenged by the tenant by filing the statutory appeal under Section 15 of the Act, which has also been dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority, vide its impugned order dated 01.3.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed both the orders. Learned counsel has argued that on 24.7.2010, the Court had CR No.2681 of 2011 (O&M) 5 ordered for tendering the rent alongwith costs and interest, but he could not appear and had the knowledge of the order in terms of which he had to tender the rent on 28.7.2010. He has submitted that his bonafide was apparent from the fact that he had moved an application on 28.7.2010 for seeking further time to tender the rent as the order dated 24.7.2010 was not to his knowledge. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the tenant has made a lame excuse before the Court below by moving an application as he was represented by his counsel on 24.7.2010 in whose presence the order dated 24.7.2010 was passed and if the tenant shows ignorance about the order ,then he is to be blamed and not the landlord. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records with their able assistance and have found that there is no substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant because it is evident from the record that his counsel had appeared on 24.7.2010 in whose presence the order was passed and a direction was given to the tenant to tender the rent on 28.7.2010 and it is his duty to enquire about the order which had been passed on 24.7.2010 from his counsel and if the counsel did not inform him, as alleged by him, then it is for him to take appropriate action against the said counsel, but he cannot take the benefit of his own fault in seeking reversal of the order passed by both the Courts below. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this revision CR No.2681 of 2011 (O&M) 6 petition and the same is hereby dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has made a prayer that he may be allowed some reasonable time to vacate the demised premises. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, submits that time may be granted subject to the condition that he would clear all the arrears of rent within six weeks from today. In view thereof, the petitioner is granted time to vacate the demised premises on or before 31.08.2011 subject to the condition that he would furnish an undertaking before the Rent Controller, Mohali in this regard and shall also clear all the dues pending against him within six weeks from today. He shall also pay the rent till 31.08.2011. It is made clear that is case of any violation of the undertaking to be furnished by him, he would make himself liable for contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 25.5.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge