CR No.5026 of 2009 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.5026 of 2009 Date of Decision:21.01.2011 **** Gurminder Singh . . . . Petitioner Vs. Ram Narain Singh . . . . Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: - Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Hitesh Kaplish, Advocate, for the respondent. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against order passed by the Rent Controller, Patiala dated 24.5.2007, which has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority on 25.7.2009 by which the petitioner has been ordered to be evicted on account of short tender of rent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that his eviction has been sought by the respondent only on the ground of short tender of rent. On 24.4.2007, following order was passed by the Rent Controller, Patiala: “RW1 is present for his cross-examination, but counsel for the plaintiff requested for adjournment. On his request made, case is adjourned to 1.5.2007 for consideration as well as for cross-examination RW1. Sd/- ACJ/Patiala At this stage counsel for the parties made statement that the rent interest and costs tendered on 28.2.2007 be treated as assessed rent interest and costs by this court and as such same is ordered accordingly. Sd/- ACJ/Patiala” CR No.5026 of 2009 - 2 - The case set up by the petitioner/ tenant was that rate of Rent is `900/- per month whereas the Rent Controller had found that there was an increase of `50/- per annum from inception of the tenancy and since the rent has been tendered @ `900/- per month, therefore, it was found to be short and ejectment order was passed. The only grievance made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of “Rakesh Wadhawan Vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation” 2002 HRR 367 which is followed by this Court in “Kaushalya Rani (dead) through LRs. Vs. Sham Lal and another 2007(4) RCR (Civil) 318, the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to pass the order of eviction immediately without passing a conditional order, meaning thereby the Rent Controller is required to pass a conditional order about the balance amount of rent, which is tendered by the tenant at the time when it was tendered provisionally and in case the tenant fails to even tender the amount which has been determined by the Rent Controller, after appreciation of the evidence, then the tenant becomes liable for eviction. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, submits that the conduct of the petitioner/tenant is such, which disentitles him the equity of this Court because every time the landlord had to file petition for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent. He also submits that before the Appellate Authority as well as before this Court, the tenant had not even made the payment of entire arrears of rent as a result of which vide order dated 18.1.2011, the stay was vacated by this Court only on the ground that he had not paid the entire arrears of rent. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the order of the Rent Controller runs contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan (supra) which provides that in case of payment of the provisional rent made is found to be short, the Rent controller is required to pass a conditional order granting some time to the tenant to make the payment of the balance of arrears of rent in order to protect his tenancy from eviction. Since this course is not followed by the Rent Controller, therefore, in my opinion, the impugned order passed by the Rent Controller is patently illegal and as such it is set aside and consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The matter is remanded back to the Rent Controller, Patiala to pass a conditional order providing an opportunity to the petitioner/tenant to deposit the balance of arrears CR No.5026 of 2009 - 3 - of rent within a stipulated time with a condition that if the said amount is not deposited within the stipulated time then the petitioner/tenant shall be deemed to be evicted from the demised premises. Parties are directed to appear before the Rent Controller, Patiala on 14.02.2011. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JANUARY 21, 2011 JUDGE Vivek