Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 17.01.2011 passed by the learned Rent Controller, S.A.S. Nagar Mohali, by which he has assessed the provisional rent to be tendered by the tenant on 21.02.2011.
(2.) IN brief, the Respondent/landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short "the Act"] for eviction of the Petitioner/tenant from the tenanted portion of House No. 542, Phase -X, S.A.S. Nagar Mohali comprising of two bed rooms, drawing and dining, two bathrooms and one kitchen, inter alia, on the ground of non -payment of rent. The Petitioner/tenant filed reply to which replication was not filed by the Respondent/landlord and on 17.01.2011 the learned Rent Controller assessed the provisional rent to be paid by the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 2,22,535/ - to be paid on 21.02.2011. Admittedly, the provisional rent was not tendered by the Petitioner/tenant on 21.02.2011 and the following order was passed: Present: Petitioner in person. Sh. Bikram Singh, Adv. counsel for Respondent. The Respondent/tenant has not come present to pay the rent the rent provisionally assessed on 17.01.2011. Petitioner submitted that ejectment order be passed against the Respondent for noncompliance of the orders of the Court as he is found to be in arrears of rent. To come up for 07.03.2011 for arguments. Sd/ - (Jaspinder Singh) RC/Mohali/21.02.2011. It is alleged in this petition that the Petitioner/tenant appeared before the learned Rent Controller on 07.03.2011 and prayed for one opportunity, on which the case was adjourned to 15.03.2011. It was alleged by him that he was not informed by his counsel about the rent to be tendered by him which he wanted to tender on the adjourned date, but inspite of that he chose to file the present revision petition against the order dated 17.01.2011.
(3.) IN this case, I have found that the tenant has played hide and seek with the Court by not tendering the provisionally assessed rent on 21.02.2011 as ordered by the learned Rent Controller and sought adjournment by coining an excuse to tender the rent on the next date of hearing, but has challenged the order of the learned Rent Controller before this Court which could not have been challenged as the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to extend the time of tendering the rent in any case in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and Ors., 2002 (1) R.C.R. (Rent) 514 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Rajan alias Raj Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar, 2010 (2) PLR 201 which has been followed by a Single Bench of this Court in the cases of Sandeep Shahi v. Smt. Asha Rani : 2011(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 103 and Baseshar Nath Trust v. Kripo Devi and Ors., 2010 (2) R.C.R. (Rent) 343.;