ARUN JAIN Vs. KULBIR KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in this revision petition is as to "whether the Rent Controller has the jurisdiction to extend time for tendering provisionally assessed rent on the application filed by the counsel for the tenant on the ground that he could not communicate the order of the Rent Controller to the tenant?

(2.) In brief, the landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short "the Act"] in order to seek eviction of the tenant from the first floor of house No.415, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh on the ground of non-payment of rent, personal necessity and nuisance. The landlord alleged that the tenant is in occupation of the demised premises w.e.f. 01.09.1995 on monthly rent of Rs.4,200/- with 5% increase every year besides payment of electricity and water charges. The tenant engaged Rajan Malhotra and Amit Rajan, Advocates, to contest the eviction petition, who filed written statement on his behalf, which was replied by way of replication and hence, the pleadings were over. On 29.11.2010, the learned Rent Controller assessed the provisional rent which was ordered to be paid on 24.12.2010. However, the provisionally assessed rent was not tendered on that date, rather an application was filed by the Advocates of the tenant under their own signatures for extension of time on the ground that "since the date of order on assessment of rent, the applicant/respondent could not be contacted despite various efforts, hence time may kindly be extended for making payment". The learned Rent Controller has dismissed the application on the same day on the ground that he has no power to extend the time in view of the judgment of Supreme Court rendered in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan and others v. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and others,2002 1 RCR 514 and passed the order of eviction, which was challenged by the tenant in appeal but that too was dismissed with an observation that sufficient time of 25 days was at the disposal of the tenant for tendering the provisionally assessed rent and the said period was also sufficieent for the purpose of informing him. It was also observed that if the time is extended in such like manner, then there would be no sanctity to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan and others' case .

(3.) Aggrieved against the order dated 24.12.2010, the present revision petition has been filed in which learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was no fault of tenant in not tendering the rent on 24.12.2010 due to lack of communication, i.e. because of the negligence of the counsel for the tenant who did not inform him about the order dated 29.11.2010.