IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 648 of 2010 Date of Decision: September 08, 2010 Sudhir Kumar …Petitioner Versus Kuldip Singh Malhotra … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers 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. Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate, for the respondent. Alok Singh, J. Tenant – petitioner has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 15 (5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), challenging the judgment / order C.R. No. 648 of 2010 dated 01.10.2009 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana, as well as judgment / order dated 07.01.2010 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Ludhiana. The brief facts of the present case are that the landlord – respondent has filed eviction petition against the tenant – petitioner herein on the ground of arrears of rent contending that tenant is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.03.1997 at the rate of Rs. 1920/- per month and at the rate of Rs. 2304/- w.e.f. 1.3.2000. Learned Rent Controller vide order dated 10.09.2009, assessed the provisional rent and directed the tenant to pay Rs. 3,62,259/- on or before adjourned date 01.10.2009. Order dated 10.09.2009 was challenged by way of revision being C.R. No. 5521 of 2009 before this Court, which was directed to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 25.09.2009. However, liberty was granted to the tenant to approach the Rent Controller for extension of time to tender the arrears of rent, if so permissible in law. After dismissal of the revision petition vide order dated 25.09.2009 by this Court, the tenant – petitioner herein moved an application before the learned Rent Controller on 01.10.2009 seeking extension of time to tender the assessed rent. The learned Rent Controller thereafter vide impugned judgment/order dated 01.10.2009 directed the 2 C.R. No. 648 of 2010 eviction of the tenant on the ground that tenant has failed to make payment in compliance with the provisional assessment order dated 10.09.2009. The judgment/order passed by the learned Rent Controller dated 01.10.2009 was challenged before the learned Appellate Authority being Rent Appeal No.15 dated 15.10.2009 which too was dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 07.01.2010. Feeling aggrieved, tenant has invoked revisional jurisdiction by way of present revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. Mr. Sunil Chadha, learned counsel for the tenant – petitioner argued that learned Single Judge of this Court while dismissing the revision vide order dated 25.09.2009 has granted liberty to the tenant to approach the Rent Controller for extension of time to tender the arrears of rent, hence, an application was moved before the learned Rent Controller on 01.10.2009 seeking extension of time to tender the rent which was not decided by the learned Rent Controller and straightway passed the eviction order. Mr. Sunil Chadha, vehemently argued that the learned Rent Controller was duty bound to extend the time to tender the rent as assessed by the Rent Controller. 3 C.R. No. 648 of 2010 It is further argued by Mr. Sunil Chadha that calculation done by the Rent Controller while passing the provisional assessment rent order dated 10.09.2009, was incorrect while as per the correct calculation amount should have been to the tune of Rs. 3,28,300/- instead of Rs. 3,62,259/-. Mr. Sunil Chadha further stated that correct calculated amount of Rs. 3,28,300/- was deposited before this Court in the shape of demand draft along with Civil Misc. application No. 5098-CII of 2010, hence, same may be accepted and order of eviction be quashed. Mr. Amit Rawal, learned counsel for the respondent – landlord stated that as per the dictum of the Apex Court in the matter of Rakesh Wadhawan vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, reported in 2002(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 514 and as per the dictum of Division Bench of this Court dated 07.01.2010 in Civil Revision No. 3577 of 2006 - Rajan alias Raj Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar, if tenant fails to tender the arrears of rent as assessed by the Rent Controller on or before the date fixed by the Rent Controller then order of eviction shall follow and nothing remains to be decided by the Rent Controller. Mr. Rawal further argued that there is no provision to extend the time beyond the date fixed by the Rent Controller to tender the amount as assessed by the Rent Controller. Mr. Rawal 4 C.R. No. 648 of 2010 further argued that this Court while dismissing the revision petition filed by the tenant vide order dated 25.09.2009 granted liberty to the tenant to approach the Rent Controller for extension of time to tender the arrears of rent, if so permissible in law. According to Mr. Rawal, this Court never extended the time nor directed the Rent Controller to extend the time and only express the opinion if law permits time can be extended. In the case of Rakesh Wadhawan (supra), Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph no.30 has held as under:- “ 30. To sum up, our conclusions are:- 1. In Section 13(2)(i) proviso, the words ` assessed by the Controller' qualify not merely the words “ the cost of application” but the entire preceding part of the sentence i.e. ' the arrears of rent and interest at six per cent per annum on such arrears together with the cost of application'. 2. The proviso to Section 13(2)(i) of East Punjab Restriction Act, 1949 casts an obligation on the Controller to make an assessment of (i) arrears of rent, (ii) the interest on such arrears, and (iii) the cost of application and then quantify by way of an interim or provisional order the amount which the tenant must pay or tender 5 C.R. No. 648 of 2010 on the 'first date of haring' after the passing of such order of 'assessment' by the Controller so as to satisfy the requirement of the proviso. 3. Of necessity, 'the date of first hearing of the application' would mean the date falling after the date of such order by Controller. 4. On the failure of the tenant to comply, nothing remains to be done and an order for eviction shall follow. If the tenant makes compliance, the inquiry shall continue for finally adjudicating upon the dispute as to the arrears of rent in the light of the contending pleas raised by the landlord and the tenant before the Controller.” (emphasis supplied). 5. If the final adjudication by the Controller be at variance with his interim or provisional order passed under the proviso, one of the following two orders may be made depending on the facts situation of a given case. If the amount deposited by the tenant is found to be in excess, the Controller may direct a refund. If on the other hand, the amount deposited by the tenant is found to be short or deficient, the Controller may pass a conditional order directing tenant to place the landlord in possession of the premises by giving a 6 C.R. No. 648 of 2010 reasonable time to the tenant for paying or tendering the deficit amount failing which alone he shall be liable to be evicted. Compliance shall save him for eviction. 6. While exercising discretion for affording the tenant an opportunity of making good the deficit, one of the relevant factors to be taken into consideration by the Controller would be, whether the tenant has paid or tendered with substantial regularly the rent falling due month by month during the pendency of the proceedings.” Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Rajan alias Raj Kumar (supra) has held as under:- “This Court is of the view that the ratio of judgment in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra) leaves no manner of doubt that the provisional rent and other ancillary charges assessed by the Rent Controller had to be deposited by the tenant on the next date of hearing alongwith arrears, interest and costs etc., as may be determined by the above said authority. The ‘first date of hearing’ has also been interpreted to mean, the first date of hearing after determination of provisional rent and other expenses by the Rent Controller. A reading of conclusions drawn in para 7 C.R. No. 648 of 2010 No. 30 of the judgment in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra) leaves no doubt that if after determination of the provisional rent, a tenant fails to deposit the same, nothing remains to be done and an order of ejectment of a tenant has to be passed. The language of conclusion No. 4 in the said para is very clear and needs no further interpretation. The Court is further of the view that the benefit of conclusions No. 5 and 6 would become available to a tenant only on his making a deposit of the provisional rent and other ancillary charges determined by the Rent Controller and not otherwise. It was implicitly made clear that it is the bounden duty of the tenant to deposit the provisional rent determined by the Rent Controller, otherwise it will entail the tenant’s ejectment from the premises in dispute. This Court feels that if a tenant is dissatisfied with the interim order passed by the Rent Controller, he has an opportunity to challenge the same before the date fixed for payment, in the higher forum. We have gone through the findings given in Rajinder Lal case (supra). We respectfully are unable to agree with the proposition of law laid down therein. The rationale of the assessment as laid down in Rakesh Wadhawn's case (supra) is to 8 C.R. No. 648 of 2010 be discerned from the view as expressed in para No. 29 of the said judgment because the Hon’ble Supreme Court has balanced the interests of the landlords and tenants so as to ensure that the tenants get an adequate opportunity to deposit the rent consequent upon determination of the provisional rent. Whatever may be the extent of emphasis, which have been put on the view taken in the judgment relied upon by the petitioner, this Court is bound by the conclusions arrived at by the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra) wherein it has been held that if a tenant does not comply with the order on the first date of hearing after determination of the provisional rent and other ancillary expenses by the Court, then eviction has to follow.” In view of the above dictums, I am of the view that the learned Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to extend the time to make deposit of the amount as assessed by the Rent Controller beyond the period already fixed by the Rent Controller while assessing the rent. In the opinion of this Court, while dismissing the revision filed by the tenant vide judgment/order dated 25.09.2009, this Court never intended that in case the tenant moves an application seeking extension of time to make deposit, the 9 C.R. No. 648 of 2010 same shall be allowed. This Court only observed if law permits, tenant can make an application for extension of time. Since, as per the Rakesh Wadhawan’s case (supra), tenant is bound to make payment of the amount as assessed by the Rent Controller on or before the date fixed by the Rent Controller, there is no question for extension of time. If tenant does not make deposit within such time as fixed by the Rent Controller while assessing the rent, tenant has to blame himself. In view of the above, no interference is called for. Dismissed. September 08, 2010 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 10