CR No.2736 of 2011 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CR No.2736 of 2011 (O&M) Decided on 27.4.2011. Surinder Kumar -- Petitioner vs. Gurjeet Singh and others --Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate,for the petitioner Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, (Oral) This revision petition is directed against order dated 15.3.2011 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Karnal, which has been upheld by the learned Appellate Authority vide its order dated 19.4.2011 on the ground that the tenant has failed to pay the rent assessed by the Rent Controller. In brief, the landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short,'the Act') , inter-alia, on the ground of non-payment of rent. The learned Rent Controller vide its order dated 18.8.2010 assessed the provisional rent to the tune of `38,500/-@ `925/- per month for the period from 1.3.2007 to 28.2.2010 and ordered its tender on 23.8.2010. On 23.8.2010, the following order was passed:- “The case was fixed for tendering of rent. The respondent has tendered the rent to the tune of CR No.2736 of 2011 (O&M) 2 `3643/-. The same has been accepted under protest and it has been further submitted that rate of rent of the premises is to the tune of 1300/- per month. Now to come up on 10.9.2010 for filing reply”. Thereafter, the landlord fled an application for seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground that he had not paid the provisional rent as ordered on 18.8.2010. The application was contested by filing reply by the tenant. Thereafter, ejectment order was passed by the Rent Controller which has further been upheld. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was a dispute with regard to the rate of rent because the tenant was alleging it to be @ `925/- per month while the landlord was claiming it @ `1300/- per month, but the provisional rent was assessed @ ` 925/- per month which was tendered by the tenant. The tenant also claimed to have spent some amount for the purpose of repair of the demised premises which he wanted to adjust in the amount to be paid by him to the landlord on account of provisional rent. The said application was allowed by the learned Rent Controller and Rs.5000/- was ordered to be deducted by the tenant but still it was found by the Rent Controller that the rent tendered on 23.8.2010 was short. In view thereof, relying upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rajan alias Raj Kumar Vs. Rakesh Kumar 2010 (1) R.C.R.(Rent) 386, eviction order was passed by the learned Rent Controller. The argument raised by learned counsel for the tenant is that it is not the case of the landlord that no rent has been tendered by CR No.2736 of 2011 (O&M) 3 the tenant on 23.8.2010. He submits that had the tenant not tendered any rent on the date fixed by the Rent Controller, then he could have moved for eviction, but since the rent was tendered which though found to be deficient as his case was that the landlord was not entitled to the rent of the period he had claimed, therefore, the Rent Controller has rightly given him time to file the reply for the purpose of trial and ultimately from the evidence, if he could have proved on the record that the tenant was liable to make the payment of rent as required by the landlord, then he would have been granted another opportunity in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan Vs. M/s.Jagdamba Industrial Corporation 2002 (1) R.C.R.(Rent) 514. Hence the order of eviction is patently illegal. The second argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Rent Controller should have ordered eviction of the tenant on that date i.e.23.8.2010, but once he had granted an opportunity to the tenant to file the reply, then he could not have passed the order of eviction. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record with his assistance. The facts are not much in dispute. The order dated 18.8.2010 by which the provisional rent was assessed by the Rent Controller was not challenged by the tenant before this Court by way of revision and the same has become final between the parties. The question then arises as to 'whether the tenant was liable to pay the said CR No.2736 of 2011 (O&M) 4 rent assessed on 18.8.2010 on the next date of hearing i.e.23.8.2010?'. The answer to this question has already been given in the cases of Rakesh Wadhawan (Supra) and Rajan @ Raj Kumar (Supra) that the tenant is liable to pay the provisional rent assessed by the Rent Controller on the next date of hearing and in case of non-tendering the same, eviction order would follow. Second question raised is 'whether the Rent Controller has jurisdiction to proceed with the trial in case the tenant has not paid the rent in accordance with the order dated 18.8.2010 which he has not challenged before this Court by way of revision?'. The answer is that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction at all to proceed with the case, and even if an opportunity is granted to the tenant to file the reply, the exercise of said jurisdiction is patently illegal and is contrary to the judgment of this Court in Rajan @ Raj Kumar (Supra). In view of the above, I do not find any error in the orders passed by the Courts below much-less the order of Rent Controller of passing the order of eviction of the tenant from the demised premises. Hence, this revision petition is hereby dismissed though without any order as to costs. 27.4.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge