Civil Revision No.6424 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6424 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:20.10.2011 Kundan Singh ....Petitioner Versus Smt. Roop Rani and another ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Vijay Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL) This is tenant's revision petition challenging the impugned order of eviction dated 30.03.2010 of Rent Controller, Jalandhar ordering eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises and the judgment dated 1.06.2011 of the Appellate Authority, Jalandhar, dismissing petitioner's appeal against the aforesaid order of eviction. Shorn of unnecessary details, it is suffice to say that the eviction of the petitioner was sought on various grounds including the ground that the petitioner was in arrears of rent. The Rent Controller vide order dated 21.01.2010 assessed the provisional rent and adjourned the case to 30.03.2010 to enable the tenant-petitioner to deposit the aforesaid provisionally assessed rent. Admittedly, on 30.03.2010 petitioner failed to tender the rent as provisionally assessed. Consequently, the Rent Controller passed the order of eviction against the petitioner in the following terms:- Civil Revision No.6424 of 2011 (O&M) 2 “Vide order dated 21.1.2010 provisional arrears of rent inclusive of interest & costs were assessed and an effective opportunity was granted to the respondent to tender the said arrears. On the adjourned date respondent failed to tender the provisional arrears of rent as assessed and even no adjournment for the said purpose was prayed for. It hardly needs to be emphasized that when tenant fails to pay the provisional arrears of rent as assessed by Rent Controller, eviction is to follow. I am supported with the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Rakesh Wadhawan versus M/s Jagadamba Industrial Corporation 2002 (1) RCR (Rent) 514 (SC) wherein analogy to this effect has been reiterated that non payment of the provisional arrears of rent would result in consequential eviction of the tenant. On the same lines is the decision of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as Madan Lal and others versus Baldev Raj 2004 (2) RCR 93 (P&H) that if tenant does not comply with the order of assessment of provisional arrears of rent, order of ejectment is required to be passed. No extension of he time could be granted to the tenant under the provisions of CPC. However in the present case the respondent has never prayed for adjournment for the said purpose. Viewed in context of the factual position being guided by law laid down by Hon'ble Courts, the present application/petition stands allowed with costs.” The appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority was also dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 01.06.2011 observing as under:- “The main arguments raised by learned counsel for appellant is that no rent was due to be paid to respondent/landlords, because tenant/appellant had already paid rent up to Civil Revision No.6424 of 2011 (O&M) 3 November, 2007 and according to him order of assessment of provisional rent was illegal and unlawful and not binding upon tenant/respondent and consequently, the impugned order has also been passed unlawfully and without affording any opportunity. Contention has been refuted by learned counsel for respondents/landlords arguing that order is perfectly legal and binding upon tenant/appellant and he was required to pay rent as assessed and on his failure to pay the rent, ejectment order has been passed rightly. During the course of arguments it was fairly conceded by learned counsel for appellant/tenant that order passed by learned Rent Controller assessing provisional rent was challenged before Hon'ble High Court, but subsequently that revision petition was dismissed as withdrawn. To find out legality and validity of the order assessing provisional rent, I have gone through record of this case and found no material on record to fortify contention of appellant/tenant. Over all analysis of the record reveals that appellant/tenant was given a period of about two months to pay provisional rent, but he did not comply with the order passed by the learned Rent Controller for payment of arrears of rent. It was specific stand of appellant/landlords regularly, but there is no proof on record in this regard. Moreover, it was his duty to tender arrears of rent as assessed by learned Rent Controller and then agitate the matter. If he was able to prove that excess rent has been received by respondents/landlords, penal consequences could follow against them. In such circumstances, as per dictum laid down in case of Madan Lal and others versus Baldev Raj 2004-LAR-429, wherein the Civil Revision No.6424 of 2011 (O&M) 4 judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in case of Rakesh Wadhawan versus M/s Jagadamba Industrial Corporation and others-AIR 2002 Supreme Court 2004 has been relied upon, eviction of appellant/tenant was inevitable. So, I do not see any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Rent Controller. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed with costs. Order passed by the learned Rent Controller is upheld. Counsel fee is assessed Rs.2000/-. Let memo of costs be prepared. Record of the lower court be returned.” Still not satisfied, the petitioner filed instant revision petition before this Court challenging the aforesaid orders. Admittedly, petitioner has failed to deposit the provisionally assessed rent on the due date. It is well settled that in such an eventuality eviction order has to follow. Reliance can be made on a judgment of this Court in the case of Mrs. Birinder Khullar v. Maninder Singh 2011 (1) RCR (Rent) 307 in which, after relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in case of Rakesh Wadhawan versus M/s Jagadamba Industrial Corporation and others-AIR 2002 Supreme Court 2004, it is held that in a case where tenant fails to make the payment of provisional rent as assessed, the order of ejectment has to follow and nothing more is required to be done and the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction at all to extend time. Thus, I find no merit in this case. Dismissed. October 20, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) savita JUDGE Civil Revision No.6424 of 2011 (O&M) 5