IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.63 of 2010 Date of decision: 5th August, 2010 Kartar Singh … Petitioner Versus Kartar Chand … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Munish Behl, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Mahajan, Advocate for the respondent. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Respondent-Kartar Chand filed an eviction petition against the petitioner-tenant. One of the grounds pleaded in the eviction petition was that the petitioner had failed to pay the rent. The petitioner challenged the relationship of landlord-tenant. However, the ejectment petition was allowed ex-parte. The petitioner filed an application for setting aside the ex- parte proceedings. The Rent Controller, Amritsar allowed the application, subject to a condition that the petitioner shall deposit the rent due till the date of filing of the petition, along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. The petitioner was afforded 15 days time to deposit the rent. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner filed a Civil Revision No.6718 of 2007 in this Court, which was decided on 22nd February, 2008 by passing the following order: Civil Revision No.63 of 2010 “The respondent claims himself to be the landlord of the petitioner. He filed an ejectment petition against the petitioner on two grounds including non-payment of rent. The ejectment petition was allowed ex-parte. The petitioner has now filed an application to set aside the ex-parte proceedings. He has also moved an application to stay execution of the ex-parte eviction order. The said application has been allowed by the learned Rent Controller, subject to the condition that the petitioner “will deposit the rent due in that petition from 14.6.2003 till the filing of the petition along with interest @6% per annum”. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this revision petition primarily on the ground that since he is disputing the relationship of landlord and tenant, he can not be asked to deposit the alleged arrears of rent. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that no interference in the impugned order is called for. However, tender of arrears of rent by the petitioner shall cause no prejudice to his plea that there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant. Since the period within which the Rent Controller directed to deposit the arrears of rent has already expired, the petitioner is granted fifteen days' time from today to do the needful. Disposed of. Sd/- (Surya Kant) Judge” Counsel for the petitioner-tenant submits that in consonance with the aforesaid order dated 22.02.2008 (Annexure P-6), he had deposited the rent on 7th March, 2008, i.e. within the period granted by this Court. To fortify this assertion, learned counsel has relied upon a receipt challan (Annexure P-7). Thereafter, the petitioner was again proceeded against ex- parte on 11th June, 2009 and the application filed for extension of time was dismissed for want of prosecution. The petitioner filed an application 2 Civil Revision No.63 of 2010 (Annexure P-9) for recalling of order dated 11th June, 2009. Vide impugned order (Annexure P-10) dated 18th December, 2009, the Rent Controller, Amritsar declined the application only on the ground that the petitioner-tenant had failed to deposit the rent, despite the fact that he was given sufficient time even after filing of the execution petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant submits that the Rent Controller had not considered the above said order (Annexure P-6) passed by this Court and the receipt challan (Annexure P-7), whereby the same was complied with. I have heard counsel for the parties. The application of the petitioner was declined only on the ground that he had not deposited the rent within a stipulated period. The time was extended by this Court vide order (Annexure P-6) and according to the petitioner-tenant, he had deposited the rent vide receipt challan (Annexure P-7). This fact has escaped attention of the Rent Controller. Therefore, the impugned order (Annexure P-10) is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Court of Rent Controller, Amritsar to decide the same afresh. While doing so, the Rent Controller shall take into consideration the order (Annexure P-6) and the receipt challan (Annexure P-7). With the observations made above, present revision petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE August 5, 2010 rps 3