CR No.6853 of 2009 - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.6853 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 25.11.2009 **** Sukhbachan Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. Jaswinder Singh . . . . Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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? **** Present: Mr. B.S. Thind, Advocate for the petitioner **** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) (1). This revision petition is directed by the tenant against the eviction order dated 7th January, 2009 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh on the ground of non-payment of arrears of admitted rent of the demised premises comprising a shop bearing No.2299/1-A situated at Pipli Wala Town, Manimajra, Chandigarh as well as against the order dated 10.09.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh upholding the above-mentioned eviction order. (2). The petitioner was inducted as tenant by one Maiya Singh on a monthly rent of Rs.500/-. Maiya Singh (since deceased - now through his legal representatives – the respondents), sought the petitioner’s eviction, inter alia, on the ground that he is in arrears of rent since 01.08.2003. In his written statement, the petitioner-tenant admitted the rate of rent as well as the fact that he was in arrears of rent since 01.08.2003. He, however, disputed the respondent’s CR No.6853 of 2009 - 2 - allegation that the petitioner was not paying the rent and rather claimed that he was willing to pay the same. The Rent Controller, Chandigarh, accordingly, vide his order dated 11.11.2008 directed the petitioner-tenant to deposit the agreed rent of Rs.500/- per month along with interest @ 6 per cent per annum w.e.f. 01.08.2003. (3). The petitioner-tenant was required to tender the arrears of rent, on the date fixed i.e. on 07.01.2009 but he failed to tender the same on the adjourned date also. Thereafter, the petitioner’s counsel took a plea that he had no instructions from the petitioner-tenant. The counsel withdrew himself from the proceedings and the petitioner was, accordingly, proceeded against ex parte. Following the dictum in Rakesh Wadhawan vs. M/s. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation 2002(2) Rent Law Reporter, Supreme Court 36, the Rent Controller, Chandigarh passed the eviction order on that very day. (4). The petitioner went in appeal but the same has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh vide impugned judgement dated 10.09.2009. In para 28 of the impugned judgement, the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, has categorically observed as follows:- “It seems that tenant was/is not willing to deposit the rent. Adequate opportunities have been given by learned Rent Controller as well as this Court therefore he did not deposit the rent. In this view of the matter he is liable to be evicted for non-payment of arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.8.2003 onwards.” (Emphasis applied) CR No.6853 of 2009 - 3 - (5). It is indeed not in dispute that the petitioner did not offer the arrears of rent even before the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, though the learned counsel appearing on his behalf now states at the bar that he is now willing to pay the same. (6). I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders. (7). In my considered opinion the petitioner has willfully defaulted in tendering the arrears of rent of the demised premises and has made no efforts to offer such arrears even during the pendency of the appeal. In these circumstances, no interference is called for by this Court. It is self-evident from the mandate contained in Rakesh Wadhawan’s case (supra) that if a tenant fails to tender the provisionally assessed rent, the Rent Controller is required to do nothing except to pass the eviction order. In the case in hand, the rate of rent as well as the period of non-payment are not even in dispute, yet the petitioner did not offer the arrears of rent before the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh. (8). It may also be noticed here that the petitioner has already disclosed in his stay application that the possession of the demised premises has already been taken by the respondent- landlords. (9). In this view of the matter and for the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned CR No.6853 of 2009 - 4 - orders dated 07.01.2009 and 10.09.2009 passed by the Courts below. (10). Dismissed. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 25.11.2009 vishal shonkar