S SURINDER SINGH Vs. S BALWINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant (petitioner herein) did not pay up the provisional rent and also the interest and costs assessed by the learned Rent Controller). That was a petition filed by the respondent-landlord for eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the tenanted premises on a plea of non-payment of rent. On assessment aforementioned being made, the matter was adjourned to 18.12.2008 for tender. On that date, neither the rent was tendered nor was any plea for extension of time made. The learned Rent Controller, on noticing those facts, struck off the defence of the petitioner/tenant and granted an ejectment decree against it.

(2.) The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argues that the impugned order is invalid in view of the fact that no opportunity whatsoever came to be afforded to the respondent-landlord to prove the averments in the course of the petition.

(3.) The plea raised is denuded of merit. It is apparent from the impugned order itself that ejectment had been applied for on an averment on non-payment of rent. The provisional rent etc. was assessed by the learned Rent Controller and the matter was adjourned for tender. The petitioner-tenant did not make the tender and did not apply for extension of time. Though one may have reservations about the former part of the order vide which the defence of the petitioner-tenant was ordered to be struck off on account of non-payment of rent etc, the latter part of the order deserves affirmation as it is completely in accord with the law laid down by the Apex Court in Rakesh Wadhawan and others Vs. M/s Jagdamaba Industrial Corporation and others,2003(2) CCC 361.