Civil Revision No. 4527 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 4527 of 2010 Date of Decision: 23.7.2010 Parvinder Singh …Petitioner Versus Gubachan Kaur Badial …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. H.S. Dhindsa, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Vide order dated 26.5.2009 (Annexure P1), the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, ordered eviction of the tenant on the ground that he has not paid the provisional rent, so assessed, either on 5.5.009 or on the subsequent date i.e. 26.5.2009 to which the extension was also granted. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner had approached the Appellate Authority, who, vide order dated 17.7.2009 (Annexure P2), also gave an opportunity to the petitioner to deposit the provisional rent as assessed by the Rent Controller. But the petitioner failed to do so. Relying upon Rakesh Wadhawan v. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation AIR 2002 Supreme Court 2004 as interpreted by a Division Bench of this Court in Rajan alias Raj Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar (Civil Revision No. 3577 of 2006, decided on 7.1.2010), the Civil Revision No. 4527 of 2010 2 Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, vide order dated 17.2.2010 (Annexure P3) upheld the order (Annexure P1) passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, whereby eviction of the petitioner/tenant was ordered. A plea has been raised in the present revision petition that when the appeal was listed and order (Annexure P2) was passed to deposit the provisional rent, the petitioner had entrusted the amount to his counsel, who failed to deposit the same before the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a complaint dated 15.3.2010 (Annexure P6) made to the Chairman, Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh, against the counsel to say that he failed to deposit the amount before the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana and thereby made himself liable of misconduct. Be that as it may, two opportunities were given by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, to the petitioner to deposit the provisional rent. The amount of rent assessed and accrued amounted to Rs.64,017/-, which was not deposited by the petitioner. He has been continuing to reside in the demised premises since 1.4.2006 without paying any rent. The conduct of the petitioner disentitles him to pursue the present revision petition. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed, in limine. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge July 23, 2010 “DK”