Civil Revision No. 646 of 2010 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 646 of 2010 Date of decision : 10.3.2010 Ramesh Chander Setia & others Petitioners Versus Hari Parkash Gupta Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Vikram Bali, Advocate for respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. Conceded facts in the first instance. The petitioner-landlord filed a plea against the respondent-tenant, for ejectment of the latter from the tenanted premises on account of non-payment of rent. The provisional rent came to be assessed, vide order dated 11.12.2009 and the matter was adjourned to 18.1.2010for tender. None entered appearance on behalf of the respondent-tenant on that date. The learned Rent Controller, in terms of the view obtained by the Apex Court in Rakesh Wadhawan Vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, AIR 2002 SC 2004, ordered the eviction of respondent-tenant from the tenanted premises. The respondent-tenant was granted three months' time to vacate the premises aforementioned. The landlord is in revision against the grant of three Civil Revision No. 646 of 2010 -2- *** months' time on a precise plea that the grant of time is violative of law laid down by the Apex Court in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra). In that very context, it is argued that it was inappropriate on the part of the learned Rent Controller to have granted that time, particularly when none had opted to enter appearance on behalf of the respondent-tenant on the adjourned date of hearing. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent-tenant, states that the tenant has already filed an appeal against the eviction order which is pending consideration at the hands of the Appellate Authority for 5.4.2010. His apprehension is that the disposal of the present petition may not affect the merits of the plea pending consideration before the Appellate Authority. The leaned counsel does not,however, conceal that no stay order in the matter has been granted by the learned Appellate Authority which has only ordered the issuance of a notice of the stay plea to the party opposite i.e. the landlord herein. The present plea raised by the landlord is only qua the three months' time granted by the learned Rent Controller to the tenant to vacate the tenanted premises. The disposal of that plea either way cannot and would not affect the ultimate merits of eviction order. It will be for the learned Appellate Authority to independently assess the validity or otherwise of the plea raised therein by the tenant that the provisional assessment was legally inappropriate. A perusal of the view obtained by the Apex Court in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra), would indicate that eviction must necessarily follow the non compliance with an order qua payment of Civil Revision No. 646 of 2010 -3- *** provisional rent etc. assessed by the learned Rent Controller. It is common ground that order was not complied with. In that view of things, this petition shall stand allowed. The impugned order dated 18.1.2010 granting three months' time to vacate the tenanted premises is quashed. However, the allowance of the plea raised herein shall not, in any manner, have any bearing upon the adjudication of the controversy pending before the learned Appellate Authority. Disposed of accordingly. March 10, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE