CR No.3732 of 2011 (O&M) - 1 - ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.3732 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:03.06.2011. Anshu ...Petitioner Versus Devinder Kumar ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Gaurav Bhaiya, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The tenant is in revision against orders of his eviction passed by the Courts below. The landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short “the Act”] for seeking eviction of the tenant from the demised premises, inter alia, on the ground of non-payment of rent. The eviction petition was filed on 19.07.2010 in which written statement was filed by the tenant on 16.12.2010. The learned Rent Controller assessed the provisional rent on 12.02.2011 which was ordered to be tendered on 23.02.2011. The tenant challenged the order dated 12.02.2011 by way of CR No.1908 of 2011 which was dismissed on 22.03.2011. The tenant did not tender the rent on 23.03.2011. Consequently, the learned Rent Controller passed the order of eviction. The tenant filed an application for review before the learned Rent Controller on 25.03.2011 as well as the statutory appeal before the learned Appellate Authority against the order of eviction dated 23.03.2011 in which it was alleged that her advocate Rohit Khullar conveyed 25.03.2011 as the date of tender of rent. In order to prove her bona fide, she had prepared a CR No.3732 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - ****** draft of `98,500/- drawn at HDFC Bank, Chandigarh on 24.03.2011 and had brought it to the Court on 25.03.2011, but both the Courts below did not agree with the explanation given by the tenant for not tendering the rent on the stipulated date on the ground that it is a matter between the tenant and her advocate which cannot be made basis for the extension of time. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the tenant had already lodged a complaint against her advocate Rohit Khullar before the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana High Court in which she has alleged that he had taken `7,00,000/- for communicating a wrong date so that order of eviction could be passed against her. Be that as it may, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Courts below on the correct appreciation of law as it is provided that in case of non-tender of rent on due date, the learned Rent Controller has to pass the order of eviction. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and as such, the same is hereby dismissed in limine, however, without any order as to costs. June 03, 2011. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE