Civil Revision Nos. 4480 and 4493 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. 1. Civil Revision No.4480 of 2010 Mahipal …Petitioner Versus Dharenderpal Gupta …Respondent AND 2. Civil Revision No.4493 of 2010 Mahipal …Petitioner Versus Dharenderpal Gupta …Respondent Date of Decision: 21.7.2010 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Dr. Surya Parkash, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) By this common order, both the revision petitions viz. Civil Revision Nos.4480 and 4493 of 2010 shall be disposed of, as the parties to the dispute and the premises in question are one and raise similar question of law and facts. The Rent Controller, Narwana, came to a conclusion that the request made by the petitioner was not bonafide and the rent is to be paid by the tenant at the rate of Rs.4,000/ per month w.e.f. 1.11.2008 in Eviction Petition No. 38 of 2009 and Rs.5,000/- per month w.e.f. Civil Revision Nos. 4480 and 4493 of 2010 2 1.9.2008 in Eviction Petition No. 36 of 2009. Non payment of the rent on the next date, after the assessment of the provisional rent, had eclipsed the rights of the tenant, as per the ratio of law as laid down in a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan v. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation AIR 2002 Supreme Court 2004. The said judgment, on a reference made by a Single bench of this Court, has been further interpreted by a Division Bench of this Court in Rajan alias Raj Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar (Civil Revision No. 3577 of 2006, decided on 7.1.2010), wherein it has been observed as under:- “...This Court is of the view that the ratio of judgment in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra) leaves no manner of doubt that the provisional rent and other ancillary charges assessed by the Rent Controller had to be deposited by the tenant on the next date of hearing alongwith arrears, interest and costs etc., as may be determined by the above said authority. The ‘first date of hearing’ has also been interpreted to mean, the first date of hearing after determination of provisional rent and other expenses by the Rent Controller. A reading of conclusions drawn in para No. 30 of the judgment in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra) leaves no doubt that if after determination of the provisional rent, a tenant fails to deposit the same, nothing remains to be done and an order of ejectment of a tenant has to be passed. The Civil Revision Nos. 4480 and 4493 of 2010 3 language of conclusion No. 4 in the said para is very clear and needs no further interpretation. The Court is further of the view that the benefit of conclusions No. 5 and 6 would become available to a tenant only on his making a deposit of the provisional rent and other ancillary charges determined by the Rent Controller and not otherwise. It was implicitly made clear that it is the bounden duty of the tenant to deposit the provisional rent determined by the Rent Controller, otherwise it will entail the tenant’s ejectment from the premises in dispute. This Court feels that if a tenant is dissatisfied with the interim order passed by the Rent Controller, he has an opportunity to challenge the same before the date fixed for payment, in the higher forum” In view of the above, there is no merit in both the revision petitions and the same are hereby dismissed, in limine, as the Rent Controller, Narwana, could not extend time to deposit the rent as it would have prejudiced the rights of landlord, which had accrued to him due to law laid down in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra) by Hon'ble the Apex Court and interpreted by a Division Bench of this Court in Rajan alias Raj Kumar's case (supra). (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge July 21, 2010 “DK”