Civil Revision No. 2203 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2203 of 2009 Date of decision : 7.1.2010 Harminder Singh .....Petitioner Versus S.Harinder Singh ...Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. J.S.Sathi, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Raman Mahajan, Advocate for the respondent S. D. ANAND, J. The facts apparent from a conjunctive perusal of the order dated 28.1.2008 and order dated 29.1.2009 granted by learned Rent Controller and learned Appellate Authority respectively, are as under:- The respondent-landlord had filed a plea for ejectment of petitioner-tenant from the tenanted premises on an averment of non- payment of arrears of rent and also personal necessity. The matter came to be listed for assessment of provisional rent. However, on the date fixed for the purpose, none entered appearance on behalf of the petitioner-tenant. Exparte proceedings were ordered against him. The matter was posted to 6.12.2007, for recording of exparte evidence. It was then that a plea for setting aside of exparte proceedings was filed by the petitioner-tenant through a counsel. The grant of application having been conceded, exparte order was set aside, subject to payment of costs and the matter was adjourned to 21.12.2007 for assessment of provisional rent. On that date, the provisional rent was Civil Revision No. 2203 of 2009 -2- **** assessed in the presence of the counsel for the parties and the matter was adjourned to 28.1.2008 for payment/tender of arrears of rent and also for framing of issues. However, none entered appearance on behalf of the petitioner-tenant on 28.1.2008. On account of non-payment of assessed provisional rent etc, ejectment of the petitioner-tenant was ordered. However, the petitioner-tenant was given two months time to vacate the tenanted premises. It was against that order that an appeal was filed before the learned Appellate Authority. Alongwith the appeal, the petitioner-tenant enclosed a draft for entire amount which had been assessed as provisional rent etc. The draft was accepted by the respondent-landlord who got it encashed. The rent paid thereby pertained to the period from March, 2004 to April, 2008. The petitioner-tenant is regularly paying rent to the respondent-landlord with effect from May, 2008 and thereafter. The plea raised before the learned Appellate Authority was that the deposit could not be made before the learned Rent Controller as no intimation thereof had been given by the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant. The further plea raised was that enclosing a draft for the entire arrears of rent was indicative of the fact that the petitioner-tenant was acting bonafide in the context. The appeal before the Appellate Authority was on an averment that a party may not made to suffer on account of a default on the part of the counsel representing that party. The learned Appellate Authority affirmed the order granted by the learned Rent Controller by relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Rakesh Wadhawan Vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, AIR 2002 SC 2004. The petitioner-tenant is in revision against the order dated Civil Revision No. 2203 of 2009 -3- **** 29.1.2008. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner-tenant, argued that the ends of justice would require grant of protection to the tenant as the non-deposit of the assessed provisional rent etc. was on account of dereliction on the part of the learned counsel who did not intimate him (petitioner-tenant) in the context. It was also argued that tender of due amount in entirety was a clear indication of the bonafide on the part of the petitioner-tenant. It was further argued that respondent- landlord should be deemed to be estopped from contesting the petition as the draft had been encashed and rent had been accepted by him for the period thereafter which (rent) was being paid in time by the petitioner- tenant. The plea, raised on behalf of the petitioner-tenant, does not merit acceptance. The reasons therefor are as under:- The relevant provisions of the Rent Legislation would require compulsive payment of the assessed provisional rent (alongwith interest and costs etc.) on the first date of hearing. If that payment does not come about, the only order which can follow is the ejectment of the tenant on account of non-payment of the amount aforementioned. This inferential observation was affirmed by the Apex Court in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra). No law to the contrary has been cited before this Court. Insofar as the enclosing of draft for the due amount in entirety and also the encashment thereof and the acceptance of the monthly rent for the period thereafter by the respondent-landlord is concerned, it does not affect the merits of the case. Whether the rent was paid on the first date of hearing or was recovered otherwise would not affect the entitlement of the respondent-landlord to have that amount. That being Civil Revision No. 2203 of 2009 -4- **** so, the mere encashment of the tendered draft would not divest the respondent-landlord of a statutory entitlement which came to vest in him, for ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from the premises under reference, on account of the non-payment of the amount on the first date of hearing. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be devoid of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. January 7, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter : Yes/No