G.S SANDHAWALIA J. (ORAL)
1. The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 28.02.2012 passed by the Rent Controller-cum-Civil Judge (Jr.Div), Chandigarh. The landlord is aggrieved against the dismissal of the execution application filed on account of late deposit of rent.
2. Vide order dated 08.10.2011, the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, while disposing of the ejectment application between the parties, had fixed the rent at Rs. 1000/- per month and held that respondent-tenant was in arrears of rent since August, 1999, and accordingly, the tenant was directed to pay the rent within a period of 3 months and in case he failed to comply with the said directions, he would be liable to be evicted. The said period was to expire on 08.01.2012
3. The tenant filed an application on 03.01.2012 before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh praying that he may be permitted to deposit the rent in pursuance of the orders dated 08.10.2011 Instead of allowing the application therein then, the Rent Controller, Chandigarh issued notice to the landlord for 23.01.2012 Accordingly, the landlord contested the application on the ground that the deposit was not made by the stipulated period, i.e, by 08.01.2012, and therefore, the tenant was liable to be evicted. The Rent Controller, Chandigarh, vide order dated 28.02.2012, has now held that there was no fault on the part of the tenant and the tenant has already made payment of Rs. 1,10,465/-. The Rent Controller, Chandigarh, in his order, has noticed that the tenant had approached the Court and placed on record the Treasury challan vide which he propose to deposit the rent in the Treasury and instead of ordering that the amount be deposited in the Treasury, the Court issued notice to the decree holder in order to avoid unnecessary inconvenience to the decree holder in withdrawing the amount. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.
4. In the present revision petition, counsel for the landlord contends that in view of Rakesh Wadhwan v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation 2002 (2) RCR 541, the amount was to be deposited within the stipulated period of three months, and therefore, ejectment should follow. He also contends that the order amounts to review of the earlier order dated 08.10.2011
5. The said submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the amount was not deposited within the stipulated period is without any basis. It is settled principle that any act of the Court shall not harm any party. The order of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh is very clear to the effect that the tenant had approached the Court on 03.01.2012 with an application for permission to deposit the rent. In fact, the application should have been allowed as the issue had already been decided. But the Rent Controller, Chandigarh choose to issue notice to the landlord to make the payment to the landlord directly. The landlord, now wants to take advantage of this technicality and get the premises vacated on the ground on non-payment of rent within the stipulated period. The said submission is not acceptable as the facts and circumstances shows that the tenant was ready and willing to deposit the rent in compliance of the order and there was no intention to with-hold the rent. The second submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the order amounts to review of the earlier order dated 08.10.2011 is also without any basis. The application has been filed and the orders have been passed on the application, and accordingly, the Rent Controller, Chandigarh has come to a valid conclusion which led to the dismissal of the execution application.
6. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is dismissed.