SUNIL DUTTA Vs. GURNAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT had filed a petition against the petitioner under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act for ejectment of the respondent from the demised premises. Learned Rent controller allowed the petition as the petitioner had failed to deposit the arrears of rent as determined by it. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 30.10.2013. I have learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

(2.) IN the present case, admittedly, the Rent Controller had assessed the provisional rent @ Rs. 1,000/ - per month vide order dated 26.3.2012. The said amount was not tendered by the petitioner on the first date of hearing along with interest and costs. In these circumstances, the courts below rightly relied upon the Civil Revision No. 46 of 2014 decision of the Apex Court in Rakesh Wadhawan vs. M/s. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation : 2002 (1) RCR (Rent) 514, while ordering the eviction of the petitioner, wherein it was held as under: -