Civil Revision No. 450 of 2010 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 450 of 2010 Date of decision : 26.2.2010 Trilochan Singh ....Petitioner Versus Rajvir Singh Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Rajinder Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. It is beyond the pale of controversy that the originally assessed rent, (interest and costs etc.) was not paid by the petitioner-tenant on the first date of hearing for the purpose aforementioned. In the light thereof, the learned Rent Controller ordered the ejectment of the petitioner herein from the tenanted premises in accord with the law laid down by this Court in Rakesh Wadhwan and others Vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and others AIR 2002 SC, 2004. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner- tenant argues that the learned Trial Court acted illegally in proceeding to order ejectment of petitioner without affording an opportunity to the petitioner/tenant to adduce evidence to prove that no arrears of rent were payable to the landlord who had, inspite of Civil Revision No. 450 of 2010 -2- *** receipt of all the due rent, refrained from issuing any receipt to that effect. The plea raised is negatived. The reasons therefor are as under:- The Apex Court had categorically held in Rakesh Wadhwan's case (supra) as under:- “On the failure of the tenant to comply, nothing remains to be done and an order for eviction shall follow. If the tenant makes compliance, the inquiry shall continue for finally adjudicating upon the dispute as to the arrears of rent in the light of the contending pleas raised by the landlord and the tenant before the Controller.” In the light of the categorical law laid down by the Apex Court in Rakesh Wadhwan's case (supra), the impugned order granted by the learned Trial Court is valid. The law does not, at all, provide for affording an opportunity to raise or prove the plea of the indicated category. The law would envision compulsive payment on the part of the tenant and it is thereafter only that the petition could be tried on merit thereof in the context of the averment that rent had already been paid up. The petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. February 26, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE