Civil Revision No. 6287 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6287 of 2009 Date of decision : 23.3.2010 Sanjay Mehra ....Petitioner Versus Rajashpreet SinghBajwa ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. J.P.S. Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harsh Bunger, Advocate for the respondents. S. D. ANAND, J. The eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the tenanted premises came to be ordered by the learned Rent Controller and affirming by the learned Appellate Authority, on a finding that the order granted by the former for the tender of provisionally assessed rent etc. was not complied with. The order is in conformity with the law laid down by the Apex Court in Rakesh Wadhawan Vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corproation AIR 2002 SC 2004. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argued that the impugned orders required invalidation in view of the fact that the provisional assessment of rent had been made by ignoring the fact that it is unnatural for the respondent-landlord to have kept mum if the due rent was not paid for the indicated long period of time. In that very context, it was argued that it is a fit case for grant of relief to the petitioner-tenant in view of the fact that he had deposited the arrears of rent in compliance with the order dated 13.10.2009 granted by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. That order came to be granted at the time of motion hearing itself. Civil Revision No. 6287 of 2009 -2- Insofar as the latter facet of plea advanced is concerned, it deserves to be merely noticed to be discarded. That order cane to be granted in the context of plea raised by the petitioner-tenant for the stay of operation of the impugned order qua his ejectment from the premises aforementioned. Apart therefrom, it may be noticed that the motion order does not cover the entire period for which the provisional assessment of rent was made. It also cannot be wished away by the petitioner-tenant that the rent paid was, in any case, due to the respondent-landlord. There is no warrant for the proposition that deposit of arrears in terms of a motion order would enable the petitioner-tenant to wriggle out of the compulsive implications of non-compliance into the law obtained by the Apex Court in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra). It was, then, argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Rent Controller ought to have granted an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in support of the respective stances. That grant of opportunity, the argument proceeds, would have been in accord with the principle of fair play, equity and justice inasmuch as then only could the petitioner-tenant have the opportunity of proving that the amount claimed by the respondent-landlord was, infact, not due and that the rate at which rent had been claimed was factually not correct. It was also the plea that this Court itself had taken a view in Rajinder Lal Vs. Gopal Krishan (2006-2) P.L.R. 124 that final order of ejectment may be granted only after affording the parties an opportunity to controvert the stances of each other. The view obtained by the learned Single Judge in this case was gone into by a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Revision No.3577 of 2006 (Raj Kumar Vs. Rakesh Kumar), on a reference made by another learned Single Judge of this Court. The Division Bench held that the Civil Revision No. 6287 of 2009 -3- failure on the part of the tenant to pay the provisional assessed rent must be followed by an order of ejectment. In view, thus, of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra) and also the view obtained by the Division Bench of this Court in Rajan alias Raj Kumar's case (supra) inescapable conclusion is that a tenant who does not comply with the order of provisional assessed, rent must face eviction. No other point is argued. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. The petitioner-tenant shall have two months time from today to vacate the premises aforementioned. March 23, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE