G.S. Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 15.09.2010 (Annexure P1), whereby the eviction petition was allowed by the Rent Controller, Yamunanagar on account of the fact that the provisional rent, as assessed on 29.05.2008, had not been deposited. The appeal filed before the Appellate Authority was dismissed on 02.05.2013. Resultantly, the present revision petition has been filed.
(2.) A perusal of the paper-book would go on to show that in the application for ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent, the Rent Controller had assessed the provisional rent at the cost of Rs. 24000/-, as per the law laid down in Rakesh Wadhawan & others v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation & others 2002 (5) SCC 440 and adjourned the case to 17.07.2008 but the tenant failed to make the payment. The Rent Controller, keeping in mind the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Rajan @ Raj Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar 2010 (2) PLR 201 directed eviction by noticing that the order dated 29.05.2008 has become final. The appeal was also dismissed by taking into account the other judgments of this Court on the same issue, namely, Rajesh Thakur & others v. Jangi Lal 2011 (3) RCR (Civil) 312, Bachan Singh v. Yadvinder Kumar 2011 (3) RCR (Civil) 747, Hariender Kaur v. Sharan Gurdev Singh 2008 (2) RCR (Civil) 183 and Chand Kumar Ahuja v. Gurdarshan Singh Gill 2012 (3) Civil Court Cases 196.
(3.) The dispute in question has been settled, beyond a pale of controversy, since the Division Bench of this Court in Rajan's case (supra) held that once there is a failure to deposit the rent assessed, nothing is to be done and eviction has to follow. Relevant observations read as under: "13. This Court is of the view that the ratio of judgment in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra) leaves no manner of doubt that the provisional rent and other ancillary charges assessed by the Rent Controller had to be deposited by the tenant on the next date of hearing alongwith arrears, interest and costs etc., as may be determined by the above said authority. The 'first date of hearing' has also been interpreted to mean, the first date of hearing after determination of provisional rent and other expenses by the Rent Controller. A reading of conclusions drawn in para No. 30 of the judgment in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra) leaves no doubt that if after determination of the provisional rent, a tenant fails to deposit the same, nothing remains to be done and an order of ejectment of a tenant has to be passed. The language of conclusion No. 4 in the said para is very clear and needs no further interpretation. The Court is further of the view that the benefit of conclusions No. 5 and 6 would become available to a tenant only on his making a deposit of the provisional rent and other ancillary charges determined by the Rent Controller and not otherwise. It was implicitly made clear that it is the bounden duty of the tenant to deposit the provisional rent determined by the Rent Controller, otherwise it will entail the tenant's ejectment from the premises in dispute. This Court feels that if a tenant is dissatisfied with the interim order passed by the Rent Controller, he has an opportunity to challenge the same before the date fixed for payment, in the higher forum. 14. We have gone through the findings given in Rajinder Lal case (supra). We respectfully are unable to agree with the proposition of law laid down therein. The rationale of the assessment as laid down in Rakesh Wadhawn's case (supra) is to be discerned from the view as expressed in para No. 29 of the said judgment because the Hon'ble Supreme Court has balanced the interests of the landlords and tenants so as to ensure that the tenants get an adequate opportunity to deposit the rent consequent upon determination of the provisional rent. Whatever may be the extent of emphasis, which have been put on the view taken in the judgment relied upon by the petitioner, this Court is bound by the conclusions arrived at by the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra) wherein it has been held that if a tenant does not comply with the order on the first date of hearing after determination of the provisional rent and other ancillary expenses by the Court, then eviction has to follow.";