Civil Revision No. 4979 of 2007 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4979 of 2007 Date of decision : 27.5.2010 Ramesh Kumar ....Petitioner Versus Kundan Kaur ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Ashu Kaushik, Advocate for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. Facts in the first instance:- The learned Rent Controller declined the plea filed by Ramesh Kumar (petitioner herein) for setting aside of the exparte order dated 30.1.2001. The order had been granted in favour of the respondent Kundan Kaur. Along therewith, the petitioner herein filed a plea for leave to contest the petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act ( hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) filed by the landlady aforementioned. The plea came to be negatived by the learned Rent Controller, vide order aforementioned. A revision filed against that composite order a Single Bench of this Court was admitted to hearing and dispossession of the petitioner Ramesh Kumar was stayed in terms of an order dated 29.3.2004 which is extracted hereunder:- Civil Revision No. 4979 of 2007 -2- **** “Admitted. Dispossession of the petitioner shall remain stayed subject to his paying/depositing entire arrears of rent. If any, with the Rent Controller upto date within a period of six weeks from today and further paying regularly the rent in future also by the 10th day of each month, when the rent becomes due. If the arrears of rent of the future rent is not paid/deposited, as aforesaid, or there are two consecutive defaults, then the stay order granted by this Court shall stand automatically vacated.” The petitioner herein made tender at the rate of Rs.100/- per month. The render was accepted by the landlady aforementioned under protest. She thereafter filed an application for issuance of warrant of possession against the petitioner on an averment that stay order could not be inferred to have become operational as the petitioner-tenant had not made tender in terms of the stay order. The learned Rent Controller, vide impugned order, granted the application aforementioned and ordered the issuance of a warrant of possession for the ejectment of the petitioner-tenant. The learned Rent Controller observed that, in the absence of an indication in the order dated 29.3.2004 granted by a Coordinate Bench (Viney Mittal, J.) of this Court in Civil Revision No. 1025 of 2003 about the rate at which rent was payable, the assumption is that payment had to be made at the rate averred by the respondent- landlord in the petition. Civil Revision No. 4979 of 2007 -3- **** It is, thus, apparent that there is controversy between the parties about the rate at which the rent was liable to be tendered in compliance with the order dated 29.3.2004 granted in Civil Revision No.1025 of 2003. That order, it is apparent, does not indicate the rate at which rent was payable. The learned Rent Controller could have sought a clarification in the appropriate format. For want of authorised clarification, learned Rent Controller could not have denied the benefit of order dated 29.3.2004 to the petitioner herein, particularly when the revision petition filed by trhe petitioner herein against order dated 27.1.2003 is pending consideration at the hands of this Court. Even the petitioner-tenant did not apply for a clarification of that order. This petition shall stand disposed of, accordingly, with a direction that the petitioner herein shall be afforded one opportunity for tendering the rent at the rate of Rs.600/- per month. If the petitioner does not tender the deficit rent on the date fixed by the learned Rent Controller, he shall be liable to eviction forthwith. Disposed of accordingly. May 27, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Civil Revision No. 4979 of 2007 -4- ****