JUDGMENT

RAJESH BINDAL J. –

1. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 2.3.2013, passed by the Rent Controller, whereby the provisional rent, interest and cost for the premises in dispute in possession of the petitioner was assessed at Rs. 5,57,800/- and the next date of hearing for tendering the same was fixed as 8.4.2013.

2. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid order was passed in the presence of counsels for both the parties. The rent was not tendered on the date fixed. The case was adjourned to 10.4.2013. On that date as well, neither in the fore-noon session nor in the after-noon session, the rent was tendered. As a consequence thereof, order of eviction was passed against the petitioner.

3. The stand of the petitioner is that order dated 2.3.2013 assessing the provisional rent was challenged by the petitioner in the present petition and in terms of the order passed by this court on 29.4.2013, a sum of Rs. 2,69,500/- was deposited in the court. An application has been filed before the Rent Controller for setting aside the ex-parte eviction order. In case the same is allowed, dismissal of the present petition at this stage having been infructuous will prejudice the petitioner.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that once the order assessing the provisional rent was passed in the presence of counsels for both the parties, to plead ignorance about the said order is taking the court for a ride. The petitioner filed the present petition in this court on 6.4.2013, but adjournments were sought. It was only on 29.4.2013, notice of motion was issued. At that stage, the petitioner did not inform the court about the passing of eviction order against him on 10.4.2013. In fact, the petitioner purposefully did not appear before the Rent Controller as he wanted to play smart. Such a petitioner does not deserve any relief from the court.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. The fact is that in the impugned order dated 2.3.2013 assessing the provisional rent, the next date for tendering the same was fixed as 8.4.2013. This order was passed in the presence of counsels for both the parties. Though the aforesaid order was challenged before this court, however, adjournments were sought on 8.4.2013, 22.4.2013 and 23.4.2013. The case was argued on 29.4.2013, on which date after noticing the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, notice of motion was issued for 9.9.2013 and interim stay was granted subject to deposit of Rs. 2,69,500/-. On that date, in fact, ex-parte eviction order had already been passed against the petitioner. Though the petitioner tried to plead ignorance about the said order, however, the same cannot be accepted considering the fact that date of hearing, i.e., 8.4.2013 was well within the knowledge of the petitioner. He had put in appearance in court on that date, but did not tender the rent. The case was adjourned to 10.4.2013 in the presence of counsels for both the parties. On that date, the petitioner having absented in the fore-noon session, the case was directed to be taken up in the after-noon session. When the petitioner neither appeared in the after-noon session nor tendered the rent, ex-parte eviction order was passed. In the application seeking setting aside of ex-parte order of eviction, a plea is sought to be taken that the petitioner came to know about the ex-parte order of eviction on 9.9.2013, the date on which the present petition was listed after notice. However, the plea seems to be an effort to over-reach the court. The fact that ex-parte order of eviction was passed against the petitioner on 10.4.2013 was concealed when notice of motion was issued by this court on 29.4.2013.

6. Considering the aforesaid factual matrix, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

********