CR No.3040 of 2011 (O&M) - 1 - CR No.3101 of 2011 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** 1. CR No.3040 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:10.05.2011 Inder Kumar . . .Petitioner Versus Rajnesh Singla . . . Respondent ***** 2. CR No.3101 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:10.05.2011 Inder Kumar . . .Petitioner Versus Rajnesh Singla . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Deepak Balyan, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This order shall dispose of two civil revisions namely, CR No.3040 of 2011 and CR No.3101 of 2011 both titled as Inder Kumar Versus Rajnesh Singla as the question of law involved in both the revision petitions is the same. In both the revision petitions landlord and tenant are the same. The landlord filed two eviction petitions under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short ‘the Act’) against the tenant on the ground of arrears of rent. The detail of the eviction petitions are as under: (i) Rent Petition No.37 of 2006 for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent w.e.f. 1.4.2004 to 31.7.2006. CR No.3040 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - CR No.3101 of 2011 (O&M) (ii) Rent Petition No.9 of 2007 for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent w.e.f. 1.7.2007 to 31.1.2007. Both the eviction petitions were tried together by the Court below and eviction of the tenant was maintained. Admittedly, the learned Rent Controller had assessed provisional rent @ `1150/- per month which was not paid by the tenant on the date of tender or even on the subsequent dates, therefore, he could not have escaped his eviction in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of “Rajan alias Raj Kumar Vs. Rakesh Kumar” 2010 (2) PLR 201 in which it has been held that in case of non-payment of provisionally assessed rent on the date fixed by the Rent Controller, eviction order would automatically follow. In view thereof, I do not find any merit in the present revision petitions and as such the same are hereby dismissed. No costs. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another connected case. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) MAY 10, 2011 JUDGE Vivek