IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 4569 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 25th August, 2009. T.T.S.Holidays Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Petitioner through Mr. N.S.Minhas, Advocate Versus Daljit Singh Kohli & Ors. Respondents through Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This Revision Petition is directed by the tenant-Company against the order dated 2.6.2009 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, whereby due to non-filing of the written statement despite repeated opportunities given, its defence has been struck-off. When the matter came up for preliminary hearing on 17.08.2009, the following orders were passed by this Court:- “The impugned order reveals that despite several opportunities, the petitioner-tenant did not file the written statement due to which its defence was struck off and exparte proceedings were initiated. Thereafter, the petitioner-Company moved an application to set aside the exparte order dated 19.12.2008, which was allowed, subject to payment of costs of Rs.2500/- and the case was adjourned to 4.5.2009. On that date also, no written statement was filed, though the costs were paid. In the interest justice, the Rent Controller adjourned the case to 2.6.2009 for filing of the written statement and last opportunity was granted. On that date also, no written statement was filed, compelling the Rent Controller to again strike-off the petitioner's defence and list the case for landlords' evidence. Against that order, the petitioner has now come up in this revision petition. It transpires that the petitioner has been making one after the other concerted efforts to hoodwink the Presiding Officer and even moved a frivolous transfer application before the learned District Judge, Chandigarh. Suffice it to say that the pendency of the transfer application was no justification for not filing the written statement, moreso, when last opportunity had been granted on more than two occasions. Prima-facie, the petitioner has taken the Court for a ride, besides indulging in unwarranted insinuation against the Presiding Officer. In these circumstances, no interference by this Court, is called for in the impugned order, as the Rent Controller has rightly refused to succumb under the pressure tactics adopted by the petitioner. At the same time and in the interest of justice, I am inclined to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to file his written statement but subject to payment of exemplary cost of Rs.25000/-. In addition to the cost, the petitioner shall also be liable to pay a sum of Rs.5500/- to the landlords towards litigation cost. Let notice of motion be issued for 25.8.2009”. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the costs of Rs.25,000/-, besides the litigation expenses of Rs.5500/- as ordered above, for giving one opportunity to file the written statement. Learned counsel for the respondent – landlord, however, points out that the petitioner is a habitual defaulter who has not paid the rent from the last over 10 years. Having heard learned counsel for the parties for some time, there appears to be some substance in the contention raised on behalf of the respondent – landlord. At the same time, it appears in the interest of justice and fair play to grant one opportunity to petitioner – tenant to file the written statement, though subject to the following further conditions and directions:- [i] the Rent Controller, Chandigarh is directed to pre-pone the date of hearing for the limited purpose of filing of the written statement by the petitioner – tenant and to list the case preferably on 05.09.2009 for that purpose; [ii] the petitioner shall pay the costs of Rs.25,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5500/- to the respondent – landlord on the said date, failing which the written statement shall not be taken on record and no further adjournment shall be granted for the said purpose; [iii] the Rent Controller shall make an endeavour to frame the additional issues, if any, on that very day and shall keep the case for the landlord's evidence on the date already fixed. However, before taking up the case for evidence on the date fixed, i.e., 16.10.2009, the Rent Controller is directed to determine the provisional arrears of rent, costs and interest, upon which the petitioner shall be granted an opportunity to tender such arrears of provisional rent. The tender or acceptance thereof shall be without prejudice to the respective rights of the parties; [iv] thereafter the Rent Controller shall proceed with the matter, in accordance with law and shall decide the eviction petition as early as possible and preferably within one year. Disposed of. Dasti. August 25, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE