G.S. Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) Challenge in the present revision petition filed under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is to the order dated 17.7.2014 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh whereby eviction has been ordered on the ground of non payment of provisional rent assessed on 13.5.2014. Challenge has also been laid to the judgment of the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh dated 20.10.2014 whereby the appeal has been dismissed.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh was an exparte order and the counsel was not present on the said date. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the amount of the rent as assessed.
(3.) A perusal of the record would go on to show that through the petition filed under Section 13 of the Act ejectment was sought on the ground of non payment of rent. The Landlord was claiming rent at the rate of 4000/- per month whereas the tenant was alleging 1400/- per month. The arrears were alleged from 1.7.2003. Accordingly, the rent was assessed at 1400/- from from 1.7.2003 to May, 2014 and a total sum of 2,44,922/- was to be paid on 17.7.2014. However, on the said date counsel for the petitioner failed to put in appearance. The trial Court noticed that there was no stay of the earlier order dated 13.5.2014 and accordingly in view of the Division judgment of this court in Rajan @ Raj Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar 2010 (2) PLR 201 and the judgment of the Apex Court Rakesh Wadhawan & others v. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation & others 2003(2) CCC 361 directed the eviction. An appeal was filed on 5.9.2014 and the same had been dismissed after noticing that the title of the landlord is being denied since there was some litigation was pending with the Chandigarh Housing Board. Accordingly, keeping in view the binding precedent mentioned above and placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Sudhir Kumar v. Kuldeep Singh 2010(4) PLR 658, the appeal has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh and the tenant has been directed to hand over vacant possession immediately vide order dated 20.10.2014. The said order was also passed almost two months back. Counsel for the petitioner has now tried to submit that he is willing to deposit the arrears of rent. 5. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the bonafide of the tenant is totally lacking. No effort was made to deposit the amount when the appeal was filed to show that the tenant was not responsible for any lapse. No application was filed before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh that counsel could not be put in appearance on 17.7.2014. The law has already been settled beyond any anvil of doubt. 6. In M/s. Nihal Singh Motors and others v. Shama Malhotra etc. 2004 (3) PLR 389 also, it has been held that no opportunity can be granted once the tenant fails to deposit the rent on the date fixed. 7. Thereafter, in Sanjeet Singh v. Mohali Motor Finance Co. and another, 2011 (3) PLR 15, it has been held that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to extend the period of time of the provisionally assessed rent without any reason and on failure, eviction would have to automatically follow. The relevant observations read thus:- "9. It is now well settled by this Court that in view of the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Rajan alias Raj Kumar's case (supra), following the decision of the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra), the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to extend the period of time for tendering of provisionally assessed rent without any reason. In the present case, the learned Rent Controller has assessed the provisional rent on 22.01.2009 to be paid by the tenants on 24.02.2010, but the tenants failed to deposit the rent within the stipulated period and for that matter Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to extent the time for tendering of the provisionally assessed rent. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that the case is at its fag end as the entire evidence has been concluded, however, it is disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the tenants have filed only their affidavits in their examination-in-chief. 11. Be that as it may, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra) and followed by the Division Bench of this Court in Rajan alias Raj Kumar's case (supra), the question of law, which has been framed in the beginning of the judgment, is answered in favour of the petitioner/landlord by observing that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to extend the period of time for the purpose of tendering provisionally assessed rent without there being any reason. 12. In view of the above, the present revision petition is allowed." 8. Similarly, in Mrs. Birinder Khullar v. Maninder Singh, 2011 (3) PLR 38, the issue raised was that whether the Rent Controller could review the earlier order of assessment and whether he could extend the time. The order extending the time for tendering the provisional rent was set aside. The relevant observations read thus:- "19. Thus, after considering the facts of this case and law applicable thereto, the first question is decided in affirmative and it is held that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to order extension of time of payment of provisional rent by the tenant. Insofar as the second question is concerned, that too is decided in favour of the petitioner herein because even if it is assumed that the application for re-assessment was a review application, the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to grant further time to the tenant for tendering the provisional rent when he did not agree with him on his application for review. In that circumstance, he was left with no other alternative but to simply dismiss the application as he had actually done in the impugned order but faulted by granting time to the tenant to make the payment of arrears of rent beyond the date, which was given initially when the provisional rent was fixed. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present revision petition is thus, allowed and the impugned order dated 11.8.2010 is hereby set aside with cost throughout." In such circumstances, no fault can be found in the orders passed by the Courts below and the present revision petition is accordingly dismissed.;