Civil Revision No.2630 of 2005 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4421 of 2003 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.03.2009 Inderjit Singh .............Petitioner Vs. Darshan Lal ............Respondent Present: Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.P. Vashist, Advocate for Mr. M.L. Saggar, Sr. Advocate for the respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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? -.- K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The landlord is the revision petitioner before this Court. 2. In rent control petition under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent, the dispute was the quantum of rent itself. The landlord contended that the rent should be Rs.1200/- per month whereas tenant's contention was that the rent was Rs.400/-. Without determining the provisional rent, the Rent Controller took up the matter for adjudication relating to the quantum and non-payment of rent and determining the rent to be Rs.1200/- directed eviction on the ground of non-payment at the rate as found payable by the tenant. Tenant took an appeal before the Appellate Authority before which he Civil Revision No.2630 of 2005 (O&M) -2- contended that as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan Vs. _ M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation 2002 (1) RCR 514, the Court could not have passed an order in ejectment without first determining the provisional rent payable and calling upon the tenant to pay the rent at the first hearing. The first hearing would be the date immediately following such determination. The Appellate Authority found fault with the nature of order passed by the Rent Controller and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. 3. The landlord has preferred the revision petition contending that the Appellate Authority has no power to remand the matter that the order was vitiated. It appears that before this Court, there was a direction to the tenant to pay the entire arrears of rent @ Rs.1200/- along with interest and costs, which was also complied with by the tenant. If the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner has to be accepted and that the Appellate Authority could not have remitted the matter to the Rent Controller, the issue that still arises is that it should have directed the tenant to pay the amount before a particular date. If I remand the matter to the Appellate Authority and pass order, it would result in a situation which is brutum fulmen. Any date fixed to pay the rent will be meaningless for the tenant has already deposited the amount as per the directions of the Court. The fact remains that the Rent Controller could not have directed an ejectment without giving an opportunity to the tenant to tender the amount as determined by him. A simultaneous order of ejectment with the determination of rent is anathema to the proposition laid down in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra). Although the order of remand itself may Civil Revision No.2630 of 2005 (O&M) -3- not have been justified in view of the fact that there was no date fixed for the tenant to deposit the rent, the Rent Controller's order of ejectment was bound to be interfered with and that was what was being done by the Appellate Court when it set aside the order of ejectment. Nothing survives for the landlord and under such circumstances, the civil revision petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 16, 2009 Pankaj*