IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6689 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 07.12.2009 Virender Kumar .....Petitioner versus Ram Gopal .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Amit Jain, 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? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed by the tenant against the eviction order dated 10.8.2007 passed by the Rent Controller, Hisar, which has been further upheld by the Appellate Authority, Hisar vide the impugned judgment dated 29.10.2009. The respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), for eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises, comprising a residential House No.348/98, Block No.XVI, Prem Nagar, Hisar, inter-alia, alleging that the petitioner-tenant is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.2.2001. C.R. No.6689 of 2009 (O&M) 2 It appears that the demised premises was let out to the father of the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.180/- vide rent note dated 14.10.1976. After the death of his father, the petitioner and his mother became the statutory tenants. The mother of the petitioner also passed away. Thereafter, the petitioner-tenant allegedly did not pay the arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.2.2001. It is not disputed that the petitioner was duly served; he engaged a counsel and put in appearance and did not dispute that he was in arrears of rent. But the petitioner did not turn out to pay the arrears of rent and thus was proceeded against ex-parte. Thereafter, an application was moved by the petitioner to set-aside the ex-parte order dated 30.10.2002, which was declined though he was permitted to join the proceedings from that stage of pendency. The petitioner did file the written statement claiming that the respondent was not his sole landlord and that there were other legal heirs of late Chiranji Lal who too were the co- landlords. The petitioner further claimed that he had entrusted the entire arrears of rent alongwith costs and interest to one Sunder Singh Beniwal, Advocate, but due to the alleged negligence of the counsel, the arrears of rent could not be tendered. Suffice it to observe that while taking plea the above-stated or even thereafter, the petitioner never offered to pay the arrears of rent. He rather moved an application dated 7.10.2004 to “tender the arrears of rent” which was dismissed on 10.1.2006. He preferred a revision petition before this Court which was also dismissed on 20.1.2006, followed by dismissal C.R. No.6689 of 2009 (O&M) 3 of his review application. The second revision petition was also dismissed by this Court on 30.4.2009. The fate-comply was, thus, known. The Rent Controller vide order dated 10.8.2007 decided issue No.1 against the petitioner and held that he was admittedly in arrears of rent and was, therefore, liable to be evicted from the demised premises for the non- payment of arrears of rent. The said order has been upheld by the Appellate Authority vide the impugned judgment dated 29.10.2009. In view of the above noticed admitted facts, no case to interfere with the impugned orders by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, is made out. Dismissed. 07-12-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE