C.R.No.958 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. C.R.No.958 of 2011 Date of decision: 10.8.2011 Harjinder Kaur .....Petitioner vs. Mehar Singh ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. -- Present: Mr.S.S.Rangi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Jigyasa Tanwar,Advocate, for the respondent. -- Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) This is tenant's revision petition challenging the order dated 24.12.2008 vide which the application of the petitioner for grant of interim stay was declined. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that in an eviction petition the petitioner-tenant was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte on 28.7.2008 and his eviction was ordered vide ex parte order dated 23.10.2008. Petitioner filed an application under Order 9 rule 13 CPC for setting aside the order dated 28.7.2008 whereby he was proceeded against ex parte and the order dated 23.10.2008 whereby his eviction was ordered. The said application is still pending before the Rent Controller. Along with this application filed under Order 9 rule 13 CPC, the petitioner also moved an application for staying his dispossession from the demised premises, which was dismissed on 24.12.008. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority which C.R.No.958 of 2011 2 was got dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 8.1.2011 and thereafter present revision petition was filed challenging the order dated 24.12.2008. On 23.5.2011, this Court passed the following order:- “ Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the eviction petition was filed by the landlord on the ground of non-payment of rent in which the rent was provisionally assessed and has been tendered by the tenant/petitioner in time. Thereafter, she was proceeded against exparte and an exparte order of ejectment was passed against her. Learned counsel submits that she had filed an application for setting aside the exparte order along with an application for stay which was dismissed on 24.12.2008 against which she had inadvertently filed an appeal in which stay was granted subject to furnishing of a bank guarantee of the amount of arrears of rent. Learned counsel submits that the said order was complied with and photo copy of FDR No.417767 dated 07.1.2009 was placed at the disposal of the Court as recorded in the order dated 10.2.2009. Further, the Court below had framed the issue in order to decide whether there is any reasonable cause in the application for setting aside the exparte order or not. He further submits that the matter is yet to be adjudicated upon and the parties are yet to lead their evidence. He also submits that if stay is not granted, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss. Notice of motion for 04.7.2011. Till then, dispossession of the petitioner shall remain stayed.” On 6.7.2011 it was brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner is enjoying the possession of the demised property without paying any thing. Thus, the following order was passed: “ The respondent-landlord filed an eviction application against the petitioner. Issues were framed by the Rent Controller on 15.9.2007. However, the petitioner-tenant was C.R.No.958 of 2011 3 proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 28.7.2008 and thereafter, an eviction order was passed against him vide judgment dated 23.10.2008. The relevant part of the order reads thus: “After going through this oral and documentary evidence, the respondent on the orders of this court has tendered rent @ Rs.510/- per month as arrears of rent from 1.4.2004 to 6.10.2005 along with interest and costs as assessed by the Court totaling Rs.10,920/-. However, thereafter she has never appeared in the Court to cross- examine the petitioner and his witness and as such respondent was proceeded against ex parte. The claim of the petitioner goes unrebutted against. The petitioner has placed on record the counter foils Ex.P1 to Ex.P32 of the rent received by him from Narinder Singh and others, other tenants @ Rs.1,500/- per month in the same area. However, the question of enhancement of rent @ Rs.100/- per month is not proved by the petitioner on the record but this fact goes unrebutted on the file that the rent is Rs.1,500/- per month and not Rs.510/- per month and as such I am of the view that the tender made by the respondent is not valid tender. The rate of rent is Rs.1,500/- per month and not Rs.510/- per month. The tender made by the respondent to the tune of Rs.510/- per month as such, according to me, is short and invalid and not according to law. The respondent is thus given one month's time to make deficiency of rent good i.e. total Rs.32,450/- (i.e. rent @ Rs.1500/- per month for 19 months (1.4.2004 to 6.10.2005, interest upto date and cost of petition Rs.500). The respondent had tendered rent @ Rs.510/- per month and she is required to tender rent @ Rs.1,500/- per month and the rent of Rs.510/- per month paid by respondent will be subtracted and the remaining amount will be paid with C.R.No.958 of 2011 4 interest @ 6% per month and costs of the petition Rs.500/-. The respondent shall tender the balance amount of Rs.21,530/- within one month from today, failing which respondent shall be evicted from the demised premises. Memo of costs be prepared. Record be filed.” The petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside the aforesaid ex parte order which is pending at the stage of evidence of the petitioner before the Rent Controller. Along with this application, the petitioner also moved an application for grant of interim stay which was declined vide order dated 24.12.2008. The present petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid order of the Rent Controller. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is in arrears of the rent as determined by the Rent Controller. Let the petitioner bring the amount of arrears which are due upto July 2011 on the next date of hearing by way of demand draft in the name of respondent-landlord. In case of failure on the part of the petitioner in complying with the order, the order dated 23.5.2011 staying his dispossession shall be deemed to be vacated. List on 10.8.2011. It is clarified that any payment of rent as directed by this Court shall be without prejudice to the rights of the landlord.” Shri S.S.Rangi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that despite his registered communication, the petitioner has failed to comply with the aforesaid order. In view of the aforesaid submission, this Court is of the view that petitioner is not entitled to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed. C.R.No.958 of 2011 5 However, the respondent is at liberty to move an appropriate application before the Rent Controller (where application of the petitioner under Order 9 rule 13 CPC is pending) to seek an appropriate relief regarding arrears of rent. ( Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge August 10, 2011 rk C.R.No.958 of 2011 6