CR No.8392 of 2010 (O&M) -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.8392 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:17.05.2011. Joginder Singh Chatha ...Petitioner Versus Ajit Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Amarjit Markan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the orders dated 12.08.2010 and 19.08.2010 by which the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar had extended time for the purpose of tendering the provisionally assessed rent by the tenant. In short, the landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short “the Act”] for seeking eviction of the tenant from SCF No.9, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Jalandhar , inter alia, on the ground of non-payment of rent. On the application of the landlord, the learned Rent Controller had assessed the provisional rent on 03.06.2010 to the tune of `4,25,022/- to be tendered on 21.07.2010. On 21.07.2010, an application was filed by the tenant for review of the order dated 03.06.2010 which was allowed on the same date and the provisional rent was re-assessed from `4,25,022/- to `6,01,019/- and the case was fixed for 12.08.2010 for its tender. On 12.08.2010, the learned Rent Controller, passed the following order: - CR No.8392 of 2010 (O&M) -2- ***** “Present: Petitioner with counsel Sh. G.S.Lidhar, Adv. Respondent in person. Respondent stated at bar that he wants to file an application for reviewing the order dated 21.07.2010 and requested for adjournment as his counsel is not available. The case has been kept pending the whole day for waiting the appearance of learned counsel for the respondent, but he has not put in appearance before the Court. In the interest of justice, one opportunity is granted to the respondent to file application for reviewing the order or in the alternative for making the payment of rent. Now file be put up on 19.08.2010. Dated:12.08.2010. Sd/- Vishesh, PCS, CJJD/RC/Jalandhar.” On 19.08.2010, the tenant filed the review application which was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller with costs of `1,000/- which was ordered to be deposited with the Free Legal Aid Fund. The case was then fixed for 31.08.2010 for tender of the rent as ordered by the learned Rent Controller on 21.07.2010 with a rider that in case of any failure, the appropriate order shall be passed. On 31.08.2010, the tenant tendered the rent as ordered by the learned Rent Controller on 21.07.2010, issues were framed and the case was adjourned to 08.12.2010 for evidence of the landlord. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to extend the time for the purpose of tender of rent as has been done in the present case on 12.08.2010 and also on 19.08.2010. In support of his submission, he has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Sudhir Kumar V. Kuldip Singh Malhotra, 2010(4) P.L.R. 655 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rajan alias Raj Kumar V. Rakesh Kumar, 2010(2) P.L.R. 201. He contends that in case of failure in tendering of provisionally assessed rent by the tenant on the stipulated date, the consequential order that has to be passed by the learned Rent Controller is of eviction and not of extension of time. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that CR No.8392 of 2010 (O&M) -3- ***** on 12.08.2010, the respondent was present in person but his counsel was not available, therefore, he could not file the review application but when opportunity was granted to him to file review application, the review application was filed which was not accepted by the learned Rent Controller and the case was fixed for 31.08.2010 for the purpose of tender of rent. On that date, the provisional rent assessed vide order dated 21.07.2010 was tendered by him which was accepted by the landlord. Therefore, there is no error in the orders dated 12.08.2010 and 19.08.2010 and, thus, he prays for dismissal of the present revision petition. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. It is now well settled that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to extend the time for the tender of provisionally assessed rent. He could extend the time for tender of provisionally assessed rent only if he himself is at fault, but if there is a fault on the part of the tenant, then he has no jurisdiction to extend the time on the asking of the tenant, may be for the purpose of filing the review application. The tenant is required to tender the provisionally assessed rent on the date fixed by the Rent Controller and may file the review application thereafter. The law laid down by this Court in the case of Sudhir Kumar (supra) fully covers the controversy in hand which is based upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan V. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, 2002(2) P.L.R. 370 (SC). In view of the above, the present revision petition is allowed, the impugned orders dated 12.08.2010 and 19.08.2010 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar are hereby set aside and consequently the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar is directed to pass an order in accordance with law. Copy dasti. May 17, 2011. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge