Civil Revision No. 804 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 804 of 2009 Date of decision : 16.2.2010 Raj Rani ....Petitioner Versus Dogar Dass and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. P.S.Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. The landlord (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent') filed a petition for ejectment of the tenant (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') from the tenanted premises on a plea of non-payment of rent. In a plea of resistance, the petitioner denied the existence of any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. In the context, it was averred as under:- The long and short of the controversy is that petitioner did not pay up the arrears of rent. The non-payment was in consonance with the plea of denial of relationship of landlord and tenant interse. Both the Courts i.e. Rent Controller and also the Appellate Authority ordered the ejectment of the petitioner on account of non- payment of rent. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argued that the impugned order deserves invalidation for the simple reason that the Rent Controller, after recording a finding about existence of Civil Revision No. 804 of 2009 -2- **** relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties, was obliged under law to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to pay up the arrears of rent. Reliance in support of the advocated view, was placed upon Rakesh Wadhawan and others Vs. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and others AIR 2002 Supreme Court 104. The plea raised on behalf of the petitioner deserves to be outrightly negatived in view of the law laid down by this Court in Yashpal Singla Vs. Vijay Kumar 2004(2) Civ. C.C. 603 and Jagdish Singh Vs. Mohan Lal 2004(3) Civ. C.C. 134. In both the cases aforementioned, the tenant had denied the existence of relationship of landlord-tenant, however, the Rent Controller recorded a finding in favour of the landlord on point of existence of relationship. It was under those circumstances that this court held that there was no justification for grant of an opportunity to tenant to deposit the arrears of rent. Insofar as Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra) is concerned, it has no applicability to the facts and circumstances of the case. That was not the case wherein the relationship of landlord-tenant had been denied. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. The petitioner shall have two months time from today to vacate the premises aforementioned. February 16, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE