C.R.No.2499 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.2499 of 2011 Date of decision: 27.7.2011 Madan Lal .....Petitioner vs. Punna Kaur ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: Mr. K.S.Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. -- Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. C.M.No.17649-CII of 2011 C.M. is allowed subject to just exceptions. The order dated 11.8.2011 passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, in Rent Case No.40 of 2009, is taken on record. C.R.No.2499 of 2011 This is tenant's revision petition challenging the order dated 11.8.2010 passed by Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur, which was subsequently confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide impugned order dated 7.2.2011. Briefly stated, the respondent landlord filed an eviction petition against the petitioner alleging therein that petitioner was earlier tenant in the premises in dispute at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month and after purchase of the house by the respondent he became tenant under her at the said rate of rent and thus there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was alleged that besides other grounds the petitioner was also in arrears of rent since 2.12.1992 i.e. from the date of purchase of demised premises by the petitioner till the filing of the petition. Upon notice petitioner appeared before the Rent Controller. C.R.No.2499 of 2011 2 The Rent Controller assessed the provisional rent vide order dated 28.4.2010 and the case was adjourned for 25.5.2010 for payment of the provisional rent. However, the petitioner failed to make the payment of the aforesaid provisional rent. Petitioner moved an application for review of the assessment of the provisional rent. The said application has also been dismissed vide order dated 17.7.2010. Since the petitioner failed to make payment of provisionally assessed rent upto the stipulated date, the Rent Controller following the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan vs. M/S Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, 2002(2) Rent Law Reporter, 36 ordered the eviction of the petitioner and the Appellate Authority dismissed the rent appeal filed by the petitioner. It is well settled that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to extent time for payment of the provisional rent. Thus no fault can be found in the impugned order. No merit. Dismissed. (Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge July 27, 2011 rk