IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3246 of 2009 Date of decision:29.05.2009 Smt. Jaspal Kaur ...Petitioner versus Shri Ram Phal and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Naresh Kumar Nagar, Advocate, for the petitioner. ----- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The revision is directed against the order allowing the tenant the benefit of extension of time for payment of rent, which was determined provisionally on 16.08.2008. On the same day when the provisional rent was determined, the tenant had paid Rs.5,000/- in cash and on the day when it was adjourned to namely 29.09.2008 when he was bound to pay the balance, he filed an application for extension of time and thereafter on 16.10.2008, the balance of amount was paid. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that as pr the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan and others Versus Jagdamba Industrial Corporation-2002(1) RCR (Rent) 514, the tenant ought to have paid the entire rent on the first hearing and he could not have applied for extension. The Rent Controller rejected the landlord's contention by the fact that the landlord had received the balance of Civil Revision No.3246 of 2009 - 2 - Rs.15,000/- after 29.09.2008 and used it as rendering the claim by the landlord for immediate ejectment as infructuous. In a case where the landlord was receiving the amount under protest, it ought not to have been taken as an estoppel against the landlord and treat his objection as infructuous. Still, I do not find, it is a case for interference in revision, since substantial justice has been done by affording one more opportunity to the tenant to tender the rent, when only after an application had been moved for extension of time. It cannot be contended that the Court had no jurisdiction to give such extension. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the landlord is also entitled to be reimbursed in water and electricity charges. Admittedly, there is no such direction in the order passed already by the Rent Controller on 16.08.2008 and granting the liberty to the landlord to apply for appropriate directions, if such an agreement existed between the parties, the order of the Rent Controller is confirmed and the Civil Revision is dismissed. ( K.KANNAN) JUDGE 29.05.2009 sanjeev