Madan Lal and Another vs Tek Chand Sharma

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.—This revision petition is directed against order dated 12.10.2010 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh and the order dated 07.01.2011 passed by the learned Appellate Authority by which the Petitioners have been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent as ordered on 06.09.2010.

In brief, the landlord filed a petition u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short "the Act"] for seeking eviction of the tenants from one room of House No. 1581, Phase-II, Ram Darbar, U.T. Chandigarh which was allegedly let out at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,600/- excluding water and electricity charges, inter alia, on the ground of non- payment of rent. The learned Rent Controller, vide her order dated 06.09.2010, assessed the provisional rent to be paid by the tenants on 12.10.2010. On that date, the tenants did not appear before the learned Rent Controller for the purpose of tendering the provisionally assessed rent, hence the learned Rent Controller passed the order of eviction on the same day which was challenged by them before the learned Appellate Authority, but the appeal was also dismissed on this ground.

In the present revision petition, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the rent could not be tendered because inadvertently the date of hearing was wrongly noted as 20.10.2010 instead of 12.10.2010, due to which neither the tenants nor their counsel could appear before the learned Rent Controller. The same plea was taken by the tenants before the learned Appellate Authority who has dealt with it in detail and observed that no application was moved by the tenants before the learned Rent Controller on 20.10.2010 for the purpose of tendering the arrears of rent obviously because if they had wrongly noted the date as 20.10.2010 then they would have appeared before the Rent Controller on that day but since they had noted the actual date of hearing and did not appear deliberately, therefore, there was no occasion to grant them any opportunity for the purpose of tendering the rent.

It has been well settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and Ors., 2002 (1) R.C.R. (Rent) 514, which has been followed by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rajan alias Raj Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar, 2010(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 386: 2010 (2) PLR 201, that if the tenant fails to pay the provisionally assessed rent on the date fixed by the learned Rent Controller, then he makes himself liable to be evicted.

In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and as such, the same is hereby dismissed in limine, however, without any order as to costs.