CR No.4564 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR No.4564 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision:-August 17,2009 Rani ....Petitioner Versus Kamla Devi ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reports or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported to the Digest? Present: Shri Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral): This revision petition is directed at the instance of the tenant, who has been ordered to be evicted by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar, vide order dater 20.11.2007 from the demised premises comprising one room of House No.13, backside Industrial Estate, Jalandhar. The petitioner-tenant preferred an appeal against the said eviction order and the same has also been dismissed by the appellate authority, Jalandhar vide his judgment dated 4.6.2009. The case of the respondent-landlady appears to be that the petitioner approached her to let out one room accommodation for a short duration as she was already looking for some residential accommodation in some good locality. It appears that the demised premises is small tenement in the Industrial Area owned and possessed by the respondent-landlady. It may also be noticed that the respondent-landlady is living in another room of the premises alongwith her family. The respondent-landlady filed an eviction petition under CR No.4564 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short “the Act”), inter-alia, on the ground that the petitioner-tenant has failed to pay the rent at the agreed rate of Rs.1500/- per month and that the petitioner-tenant used to come to the room in the late evening alongwith different companions and used to bolt the room from inside for a long time due to which the respondent-landlady and other residents of the locality had a bonafide suspicion regarding the immoral activities taking place in the demised premises. The respondent-landlady further averred that since she is living in jointly alongwith other family members, the room in question is required by her for personal use and occupation of the family. The facts on record would reveal that the Rent Controller, Jalandhar vide order dated 17.10.2007 assessed the provisional rent with effect from January 2007 onwards at the rate of Rs.750/- per month alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum with costs of Rs.1000/- and directed the petitioner-tenant to tender the same on or before 20.11.2007. Since neither the petitioner turned up nor tendered the arrears of rent on the date fixed, the Rent Controller passed the following order on 20.11.2007:- “Counsel for petitioner made a statement that despite the fact that the provisional rent was assessed, respondent has not come present in the court nor the rent which has been assessed paid or deposited and information regarding depositing of rent also not received. Case called several times since the CR No.4564 of 2009 (O&M) 3 morning. It is 3.55 p.m. Respondent is proceeded against ex-parte and non payment of assessed rent, ejectment order is passed. I have also perused the written reply. Relationship of landlord and tenant was not disputed. Rate of rent of Rs.500/- was claimed by the tenant though the landlord demanded Rs.1500/- as rent. Rent as assessed at Rs.750/- per month which has not been paid. Ejectment order is passed. Petition is allowed.” The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority taking a plea that she was suffering from Asthmatic Bronchitis from 18.11.2007 to 23.11.2007 and was advised complete bed rest, therefore, could not appear and tender the rent on the date fixed. The aforesaid plea of the petitioner has been turned down by the Appellate Authority and rightly so after observing that the petitioner-tenant need not to have been present in person to tender the rent as she had already engaged a counsel who could tender the rent on her behalf. The Appellate Authority appears to be right in observing that the plea taken by the petitioner regarding her ailment is an after thought and far from convincing. No ground to interfere with the impugned orders is made out. Dismissed. (Surya Kant) Judge 17.8.2009 AS