CR No.5423 of 2009 - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.5423 of 2009 Date Of Decision: 18.09.2009 **** Manjit Kaur and others . . . . Petitioners VS. Pardeep Kumar . . . . 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. V.M. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner **** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) This Revision Petition is directed by the landlords against the order dated 10th June, 2009 passed by the Rent Controller, Patiala, whereby despite non-tendering of the provisional rent as assessed by the Rent Controller, the case was adjourned to 17th July, 2009 on the request of respondent-tenant for payment of rent as already assessed. It is not in dispute that on 17.07.2009, the tenant offered the entire arrears of rent as was assessed by the Rent Controller. The petitioners, however, refused to accept the said payment. The case was thereafter adjourned to 18th August, 2009, when the following order was passed:- “Present: Counsel for the parties. Even today respondent is hereby ready with the payment but the petitioner is not accepting the CR No.5423 of 2009 - 2 - same for the reason that the provisional rent was assessed and supposed to be paid on 10.06.2009 but the tender was not on that day itself. Thus the eviction order is liable to be passed. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent submitted that he was not always ready and willing to tender the rent but could not know the exact date of the repayment and for that reason only he was given time extension to tender the rent on the next date fixed. Since he is ready with the payment, so no eviction can be allowed especially in the circumstances when they are denying the petitioner being the landlord. Moreover, in addition to the arrear of rent the respondent has taken another ground of change for impaired the value and utility of the premises. Thus no eviction order can be passed. Both the parties tendered their part of the arguments, ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the provisional assessment of rent made and the rent is not paid on that day, then eviction order should be passed because no extension of time can be allowed to the respondent. Moreover, even if there was inevident mistake on the part of the Court even for that reason the petitioner can be allowed to suffer. To strengthened their part of argument, they relied on the authority of Om Parkash Marwaha (D) thr. LRs and Ors. Vs. Jagdish Lal Marwaha (D) thr. LRs of 2009 (1) Civil Court Cases 409 (SC) Supreme Court of India on the other hand the ld. Counsel for the respondent submitted that no eviction order can be passed when firstly respondent is ready to make the payment, secondly there is denial of the landlord tenant CR No.5423 of 2009 - 3 - relationship and finally when the extension of the rent was granted by the court itself. After hearing the both the parties this Court is of the considered view that though the provisional rent was supposed to be paid on 10.06.2009. However, further extension for the payment was made and date was fixed 17.7.2009 for the payment. Since that day the respondent is ready with the payment but the petitioner is not accepting. Moreover there are some other grounds also in addition to the non payment of the rent for the eviction of the demised premises which are the matter of evidence. Accordingly, no eviction order is hereby passed and the petitioner is at liberty to receive the rent as per the provisional assessment. Now to come upon for the petitioner evidence as well as payment of rent for 19.9.2009.” The petitioner-landlord’s contention is that once the respondent-tenant failed to tender the arrears of rent on 10th June, 2009, the Rent Controller was vested with absolutely no discretion to adjourn the matter or grant one more opportunity and ought to have passed the eviction order in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Rakesh Wadhawan and others vs. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and others (2002) 5 SCC 440. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, I do not find any merit in this revision petition. It is true that the tenant is obligated to tender the entire arrears of rent on the next date of hearing after the rent has been provisionally assessed by the Rent Controller. This, however, does not mean that the defence of the tenant would be struck off automatically without any element of discretion with CR No.5423 of 2009 - 4 - the Rent Controller. Suffice it to observe that in case the tenant comes forward with a reasonable explanation, the Rent Controller, in a given situation, is empowered to extend the period to tender the rent. Taking into consideration the case in hand, the Rent Controller accepted the version of the respondent-tenant, that he was not aware of the date fixed for tendering the arrears of rent. The fact that on the very next date of hearing, the respondent brought the arrears of rent, does suggest that the tenant had no intention to evade the payment of the arrears of rent. In these circumstances, no case to interfer with the impugned order is made out. The revision petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to accept the arrears of rent without prejudice to their legal rights. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 18.09.2009 shonkar