Jeet Singh and Another vs Subhash Chander Sharma

Jaswant Singh, J.—The tenants are in revision aggrieved against the order dated 29.4.2013 (P1) passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh whereby provisional rent was assessed @ Rs. 25,000/- per month payable w.e.f. 1.2.2011 to 31.1.2012; further challenge is to the order dated 29.5.2013 (P2) passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh whereby their eviction has been ordered from the demised premises comprising one room measuring 9'' x 14'' situated on the backside of SCF No. 40, Sector 26, Subzi Mandi, Chandigarh for non-deposit of the arrears of provisional rent; further challenge is to the order dated 14.8.2013(P3) passed by the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh whereby the appeal against order dated 29.5.2013(P2) has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners/tenants has argued that the provisional rent assessed vide impugned order dated 29.4.2013 (P1) was not correctly assessed by the learned Rent Controller, inasmuch as the arrears were ordered to be paid w.e.f. 1.2.2011 by ignoring the fact that the tenants had already tendered arrears till 30.4.2011 at the admitted rate of Rs. 25,000/- p.m., before the learned Rent Controller in the other eviction petition filed by the landlord in respect of the same demised premises. It is thus submitted that the impugned order (P1) and the subsequent orders (P2 and P3) are liable to be set aside.

After hearing counsel for the petitioners/tenants, this Court is not persuaded to accept the plea of the tenants.

Even if the rent had been paid till 30.4.2011, it was for the tenants to seek their remedy in accordance with law before the expiry of the stipulated date of hearing for payment of the provisional rent. Still further, the tenants to show their bona fides were at least required to pay the remaining arrears of rent after deducting the rent paid for the three months. Concededly, nothing of the sort has been done till now. The tenants have not paid even a penny since the passing of the impugned order (P1). The law on this issue has been well settled by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan and Others Vs. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and Others, and sufficiently explained by a Division Bench of this Court in a case reported as Rajan alias Raj Kumar Vs. Rakesh Kumar, , whereby it has been held that no extension of time can be granted for depositing the arrears of provisional rent after the expiry of the date and the event of eviction is a natural consequence of non-payment of such arrears of rent. Dismissed.