Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rupinder Singh vs Anil Kumar And Others on 3 June, 2011
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
CR No.3878 of 2011 (O&M) -1-
******
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR No.3878 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision:03.06.2011.
Rupinder Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Anil Kumar and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mr. Anil Shukla, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
*****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
The tenant is in revision against orders of the Courts below by which he has been ordered to vacate the demised premises on the ground of non-payment of rent.
Admittedly, the learned Rent Controller assessed the provisional rent on 17.02.2010 which was ordered to be paid on 24.03.2010 which was declared a gazetted holiday and the case was taken up on 25.03.2010. On that day, the tenant sought an adjournment for tendering the rent, but the learned Rent Controller did not extend the time and passed the order of eviction.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Courts below had committed an error in not adjourning the case for tendering the rent on 25.03.2010 as the date already fixed was declared a gazetted holiday.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record from which I have found that after assessing the provisional rent on 17.02.2010, a period of 36 days was granted to the tenant for tendering the rent on 24.03.2010 which was declared a gezetted holiday and the case was fixed for CR No.3878 of 2011 (O&M) -2- ****** 25.03.2010. The tenant was obliged to tender the rent on the said date as the learned Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to extend the time for that purpose. In these circumstances, I do not find any error on the part of the learned Rent Controller because it is provided in Volume 1 Chapter 1 Part K Rule 4 of the Rules & Orders of Punjab & Haryana High Court that on the occurrence of an unanticipated holiday or in the event of the Presiding Officer of a Court being absent owing to sudden illness or other unexpected cause, all cases fixed for the day in question deemed to be automatically adjourned to the next working day when the Presiding Officer is present and it shall be the duty of the parties or their counsel to attend the Court on that day but witnesses are not required to attend the Court on that day. In these circumstances, when 24.03.2010 was declared as a gazetted holiday which was not anticipated, the case was rightly adjourned for 25.03.2010 and on that date the tenant should have been ready with the amount of rent to be tendered on 24.03.2010 and should have tendered the same on 25.03.2010 when he had appeared before the learned Rent Controller and had no right to ask for extension of time as the said power does not vest with the Rent Controller until and unless the Rent Controller himself is at fault. Therefore, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan v. M/s. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, 2002(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 514 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rajan alias Raj Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar, 2010(2) P.L.R. 201, the learned Courts below have rightly passed the order of eviction against the tenant.
In view of the above, the present revision petition is found to be without any merit and as such, the same is hereby dismissed in limine, however, without any order as to costs.
June 03, 2011. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE