Civil Revision No. 7983 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 7983 of 2010 Date of Decision: 8.12.2010 Sushil Kumar …Petitioner Versus Komal Sidhu …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been filed by the tenant who failed to comply with the order dated 1.4.2009, passed by the Rent Controller, Dhuri, whereby the provisional rent was assessed. The petitioner/tenant has not tendered the rent on the date fixed for this purpose. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no date had materialized on which the payment of arrears of rent could be made as the case was transferred from one Court to the other. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the date for tendering the provisional rent should be defined by this Court. Before the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner are answered, it will be necessary to recapitulate brief facts of the case. Civil Revision No. 7983 of 2010 2 Komal Sidhu, landlady, instituted the eviction petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “1949 Act”) on the ground of personal necessity. Simultaneously, she filed the petition under Section 13 of the 1949 Act, seeking ejectment of the tenant on the ground of non payment of rent. On 1.4.2009, the Rent Controller, Dhuri, held that the tenant has admitted the rate of rent and the period of arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.12.2005. The arrears of rent along with the interest and cost were assessed. The rent was assessed at ` 64,800, interest at ` 6,642 and the cost at ` 1,000. The date 9.5.2009 was fixed for tendering the arrears of rent. On 9.5.2009, the case was transferred to another Rent Controller, where it was checked and registered and on the request made, the case was adjourned to 24.7.2009 for tendering the rent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the order dated 9.5.2009, it is nowhere stated that as to who made the request for adjournment of the case for tendering the rent. The principles of syllogism lead to necessary inference that the request must have been made by the person who was the beneficiary. It was the duty cast upon the tenant to pay the rent. He got postponement of the case by making request. It is stated that the premises of the Court had shifted, nonetheless the order dated 9.5.2009 was recorded in the presence of counsel for the parties. Therefore, once counsel is present there is no escape but to follow the order dated 9.5.2009. The story does not end here. On 24.7.2009, again the request was made seeking adjournment for tendering the rent and the case was adjourned to 19.10.2009. On Civil Revision No. 7983 of 2010 3 19.10.2009, the Rent Controller, Dhuri, had passed the following order:- “...Sh. H.G. Garg Adv. for respondent. Case received by transfer, it be checked and registered. Rent not tendered. On request, case is adjourned to 20.11.2009 for tending rent...” A perusal of the order dated 19.10.2009 reveals that it was specifically stated that the rent was not tendered. What is the effect of non tendering of the rent in pursuance of the order dated 1.4.2009, whereby the rent was provisionally assessed by the Rent Controller and it was ordered that the rent be paid on 9.5.2009. This controversy is no longer res integra as a Division Bench of this Court in Rajan alias Raj Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar 2010 (1) Rent Control Reporter 386, on reference, has interpreted the judgment rendered in Rakesh Wadhawan and Others v. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and Others AIR 2002 Supreme Court 2004, to hold that in case, on the first date, fixed for the payment of rent, the rent is not paid, the tenant has to suffer at his own peril. This judgment has been extensively quoted by the Appellate Authority, Sangrur. Both the Courts below held that since the rent has not been paid and the tenant has been lingering on and obtained various dates to do the needful, he has to suffer. It is a duty cast upon the tenant also to be diligent to comply with the order of assessment of the provisional rent. Hence, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed, in limine. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Siraj Ahmad Siddiqui v. Prem Nath Kapoor (1993) 4 Supreme Court Civil Revision No. 7983 of 2010 4 Cases 406 to submit that first date means when some effective hearing is afforded and issues are drawn. This judgment is no longer helpful in view of the subsequent pronouncement by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra) as interpreted by the Division Bench of this Court in Rajan alias Raj Kumar's case (supra). Thus, this Court cannot take a contrary view than the one formulated by the Division Bench of this Court. However, the petitioner is granted one month's time to handover actual physical peaceful vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlady. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge December 8, 2010 “DK”