IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4158 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: July 07, 2010 Indu Rana .. Petitioner Vs. B.K. Aggarwal .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Navjit Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N. Jindal, J The B.K. Aggarwal- landlord (herein referred as 'the landlord') sought ejectment of the premises in question from the respondent-tenant Indu Rana on the ground of non payment of rent w.e.f. November, 2007 to March, 2010, except for the month of May, 2008 @ Rs.9500/- per month. The petitioner has pleaded that though the tenant had issued six post dated cheques for a sum of Rs.9500/- each, but the same were dishonoured, therefore, the tenant is in arrears of rent. The reply was filed by Indu Rana tenant wherein she admitted the tenancy and further submitted that at the time of taking possession of the rented premises in the year 2007, she had issued advance blank cheques to him. However, later on he received the rent in cash from her. Regarding the period w.e.f. October, 2009 till November, 2009 she submitted that she could not make the payment due to dismissal of the appeal in cheque bouncing case at Patiala. However, in the second week of November, 2009 she had approached the landlord to pay rent but he refused to accept the same as such the same was tendered in the court. The Rent Controller, Chandigarh vide judgment dated 15.3.2010 accepted the ejectment application and the appeal preferred by her was also dismissed. Hence this petition. Heard, the rent due against the tenant was from November, 2007 till the date of filing the petition, except for the month of May, 2008. The tenant (petitioner) though having issued the six post dated cheques has Civil Revision No. 4158 of 2010 -2- *** set up the plea regarding payment of rent in cash but no such cash receipt has been proved on the record. However, it is noticed that during the course of proceedings, vide order dated 10.2.2010, the rent was assessed and pursuant to the said order, the tenant did not tender the rent for the month from November, 2007 to September, 2009 and tendered the provisional rent from October, 2009 to March 31, 2010. There is no denying a fact that the rent settled and assessed was @ Rs.9500/- per month and the tenant was to pay the same along with interest @ 6% per annum and costs of Rs.700/-. In the aforesaid circumstances, the rent tendered on 15.3.2010 was certainly short, therefore, the Appellate Court while applying the ratio of Rakesh Wadhawan vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, 2002 (1) R.C.R. (Rent) 514 dismissed the appeal of the tenant. While relying upon Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court, in case Rajan alias Raj Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar, 2010 (1) RCR (Rent) 386 observed as under :- “13. This court is of the view that the ratio of judgment in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra) leave 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 along with 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 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 the 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 conclusion No.5 and 6 would become available to a tenant only on his making a deposit of the provisional rent and Civil Revision No. 4158 of 2010 -3- *** 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.” Thus, having gone through the observations as given by the Rent Controller as well as Appellate Court, I do not stand to differ with the same. Consequently, finding no merit in the petition the same is dismissed. However, the petitioner (tenant) is directed to vacate the demised premises within three months from today. July 07, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge