CR No.3801 of 2011 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CR No.3801 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.06.2011 Sohan Singh . . .Petitioner Versus Naresh Kumr Jassal . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Avnish Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against order dated 10.5.2011 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ambala by which provisional rent has been assessed. In brief, the landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short ‘the Act’) in order to seek eviction of the tenant from Ist Floor of the property bearing House No.5773/2, Mohalla Palledaran, Ambala Cantt, inter alia, on the ground of non-payment of rent. On 10.5.2011, pursuant to the notice issued to the tenant Mr.Naresh Kumar, Advocate put in appearance and filed his power of attorney. The statement of tenant/Sohan Singh was also recorded wherein he had stated that the rate of rent of the demised premises is `600/- per month and had already tendered the rent upto December 2010 but in order to save himself he wanted to tender the rent for the period from 1.11.2008 to February, 2011 reserving his right to get the same refunded. On the other hand, learned counsel for the landlord had alleged that the rate of rent is `2000/- per month. The learned Rent Controller assessed the provisional rent @ `2000/- per month for the period from 1.11.2008 to February 2011 amounting to `56,000/- and assessed the component of interest as `2415/- and costs as `400/-. The tenant was asked to pay the rent on 20.5.2011. Admittedly, the tenant did not challenge the order dated 10.5.2011 at that time and had tendered the rent on 20.5.2011 w.e.f. 1.11.2010 to 28.2.2011 only @ `600/- per month amounting to `16,800/- with interest @ `1904/- and cost CR No.3801 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - of `400/-, total amounting to `19,104/- under protest and without prejudice to his rights. He also filed objections-cum-counter claim in the petition and stated that the rent is `600/- per month and not `2000/-. He also alleged that the rent for the period upto December 2010 has already been paid. In this regard, learned counsel for the landlord had made a statement that he does not accept the tendered amount as the same is short and invalid and is not in accordance with the order dated 10.5.2011. He also prayed for eviction of the tenant. The learned Court below then adjourned the case for 28.5.2011 on the request of the parties to decide the question of validity of the tender made by the tenant. The present revision petition is filed against the order dated 10.5.2011 in which learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the learned Rent Controller has committed an error of law while assessing the provisional rent as he did not provide any opportunity to the tenant to bring his pleadings on record before assessing the same. He, however, admitted that the said order dated 10.5.2011 could have been challenged before 20.5.2011 and that the rent could have been tendered @ `2000/- per month as assessed by the learned Rent Controller but since the case set up by the tenant was that the rent was `600/- per month as there was no evidence brought by the landlord that the rate of rent was `2000/- month, therefore, he had tendered the rent @ `600/- instead. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. To my mind, the order dated 10.5.2011 cannot be challenged at this stage as the tenant had already tendered the rent on 20.5.2011 which is apparently not in conformity with the order dated 10.5.2011. Rather the learned Rent Controller has committed a patent error of law by adjourning the case for the purpose of finding as to whether the tendered rent was short or not because in terms of the decision of this Court in the case of “Rajan alias Raj Kumar Vs. Rakesh Kumar” 2010 (2) RCR (Rent) 386, in case of non-tendering of rent as assessed by the Rent Controller, he is bound to pass the order of eviction. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in the revision petition and as such the same is hereby dismissed in limine. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUNE 02, 2011 JUDGE Vivek