CR No. 4460 of 2009. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 4460 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 10th August, 2009. Indu Rana Petitioner through Mr. J.C.Batra, Advocate with Ms. Mamta Malik, Advocate Versus Prem Thakur Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This Revision Petition is directed at the instance of the tenant against the order dated 13.03.2009 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh ordering her eviction from Bay Shop No. 399, Sector 37-D, Chandigarh, which has further been upheld by the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh vide its impugned judgment dated 11.5.2009. The undisputed facts are that the respondent – landlord let out the demised premises to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.5.2006 at a monthly rent of Rs.27,000/- excluding water and electricity charges. As per the agreed terms and conditions, the rent was liable to be enhanced by 6% every year on the last paid rent. In this manner, the petitioner – tenant was liable to pay rent @ Rs.27,000/- per month w.e.f. 1.5.2006 to 30.4.2007 and thereafter @ Rs.28,620/- w.e.f. CR No. 4460 of 2009. ::-2-:: 1.5.2007 to 30.4.2008, followed by further enhancement to Rs.30,337/- w.e.f. 1.5.2008 to 30.4.2009. The respondent – landlord alleged that the petitioner has not been able to pay the rent regularly after April, 2007 and many a times the cheques issued by her have been dishonoured. It was further averred that the petitioner deposited Rs.27,000/- towards rent for the month of May, 2007 on 3.07.2007 in the landlord's bank account, though the rate of rent stood enhanced to Rs.28,620/-. For the months of June and July, 2007 also she deposited the rent though belatedly. Similarly, for the months of August and September, 2007, she deposited the cheques on 7.12.2007 @ Rs.28,350/- as against the agreed rent of Rs.28,620/-. On this premise, the respondent – landlord sought eviction of the petitioner on the ground of non-payment of rent. The petitioner appeared and file a written statement on 2.12.2008 denying the respondent-landlord's allegations. Thereafter, the Rent Controller passed an order dated 5.2.2009 whereby arrears of provisional rent were assessed and after adjustment of the payments already made, the petitioner was directed to tender/deposit a sum of Rs.1,77,120/-. The Rent Controller also assessed costs of Rs.500/- as well as interest @ 6% per annum. The aforesaid assessment order was made by the Rent Controller following the dictum in Rakesh Wadhawan & Ors. V M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation & Ors., [2002] 5 SCC, 440. The matter was adjourned to 13.03.2009 to enable the petitioner to tender the arrears of rent. Admittedly, the petitioner CR No. 4460 of 2009. ::-3-:: failed to tender the arrears of rent nor she has even paid the future rent thereafter. In fact, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner on 13.03.2009, leaving the Rent Controller with no choice but to pass an order of eviction. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh. As may be noticed from para 8 of the order passed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner has been provisionally found to be in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.10.2007 onwards. Notwithstanding the lapse on her part in not depositing the arrears of rent before the Rent Controller. She made no offer to pay the same before the Appellate Authority also. Consequently, the Appellate Authority has dismissed her appeal on account of non-payment of rent. Aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition. During the course of hearing, her learned counsel could not dispute the fact that after October, 2007, the petitioner has not paid the rent even at the original rate of Rs.27,000/- per month. Still further, an opportunity was given to the petitioner to pay the entire arrears within some reasonable period but she does not appear to be in a position to pay the rent. Learned counsel for the petitioner would still insist that the eviction order is bad in law as even if the petitioner had refused or was unable to tender the arrears of rent, the Rent Controller ought to have framed issue[s] and given opportunity to contest the case on merits. Such a procedure, argues the learned counsel, is the real CR No. 4460 of 2009. ::-4-:: import of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan's case [supra]. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, I do not find any merit in this revision petition. The facts would speak in volume that the petitioner wants to retain and enjoy a commercial property free of cost or without paying any rent to her landlord. The factum of the petitioner's inability to pay the rent is totally alien to the scheme of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 which, expressly entitles a landlord to seek eviction of the tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent. Things would have been different had the petitioner tendered the rent @ Rs.27,000/- per month and disputed her liability to pay the enhanced rent as claimed by the respondent – landlord. The petitioner has not offered even the originally agreed rent of Rs.27,000/-. In these circumstances, there is no merit in this revision petition which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. August 10, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE