JUDGMENT Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia J.: (Oral) - CM No.8918-CII of 2012 Application under Section 151 CPC for exemption from filing certified/original copies of Annexures P1 to P9 and impugned order dated 29.03.2012 is allowed in view of the averments made in the application which are duly supported by an affidavit. CR No.2089 of 2012 1. The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 29.03.2012 passed by the Appellate Authority, SAS Nagar, Mohali wherein, in an appeal filed by the tenant against the orders of provisional assessment, it has been directed that 50% of the rent would be released to the landlord for the time-being and the remaining amount would remain deposited while issuing notice to the respondent-landlord. The premises in question are governed by the 2 lease deeds dated 09.02.2000/10.02.2000 and 23.07.2003. The ejectment application was filed by the respondent-landlord on various grounds including arrears of rent, sub-letting and bona fide requirement. An application was filed before the Rent Controller, SAS Nagar, Mohali for assessment of provisional rent on the ground that the ejectment petition was filed in the year 2008 and the rent had not been paid since 2003. On 06.02.2012, the Rent Controller, SAS Nagar, Mohali, after taking into consideration the material before it, assessed the provisional rent at Rs.41,18,366.52 and held that the amount was liable to be paid by the tenant by 06.04.2012 which would be considered as the date of hearing for the purpose of making the tender. The said order was appealed against before the Appellate Authority, SAS Nagar, Mohali on the ground that there was another landlord/landlady, namely, Smt.Sohag Bali and she was not party to the ejectment petition, and therefore, respondent-landlord was not entitled to claim the whole amount. 2. Keeping in view the averments made, the Appellate Authority, SAS Nagar, Mohali has held that one landlord can also receive the whole amount and passed the following order: “ Summons issued to the respondent not received back served or unserved. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that in fact property in question has been rented out to the appellant by the two landlords. One of them has filed eviction application out of which present appeal has arisen. In case the entire rent is paid to the said person, i.e., legal heirs of other landlady may claim rent from the appellant again. One of them has filed eviction application out of which present appeal has arisen. In case the entire rent is paid to the said person, i.e., legal heirs of other landlady may claim rent from the appellant again. This contention of the learned counsel for the appellant seems to be misconceived. Even one of the landlords can receive the entire rent. Moreover, when the rent is being paid through the Court of learned Rent Controller, then there is no question claiming of rent by the legal heirs of other landlady from the appellant again but still in order to safeguard the interest of the parties, at this stage, it is being ordered that the appellant should deposit the rent as assessed by the learned Rent Controller, with the learned Rent Controller then only one half amount should be released to the respondent/landlord J.P.Singla for the time being and remaining amount should remain deposited till further orders. Now fresh notice be issued to the respondent for 27.04.2012. Dated : 29.03.2012 (Rajinder Aggarwal) ADJ Mohali” The said order is now the subject matter of the present revision petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioner now restricts his claim only to this effect that the amount payable is very heavy, and therefore, some more time should be granted to him to deposit the 50% of the share of the other landlord. He has contended that the tenant is willing to deposit the 50% of the share of respondent-landlord, J.P.Singla but regarding the share of Smt.Sohag Bali, which has to be deposited with the Rent Controller, SAS Nagar, Mohali and not released, the period of deposit may be extended by another one month. Reliance is placed upon the observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rakesh Wadhawan & others Vs. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation & others 2002 (2) PLR 370 and especially to para No.28 which reads as under: “28. A Statute can never be exhaustive, and therefore, Ragubar Dayal, J. speaking for himself and Wanchoo and Das Gupta JJ. observed in Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, AIR 1962 SC 527, at page 532, “ that the Legislature is incapable of contemplating all the possible circumstances which may arise in future litigation and consequently for providing the procedure for them”. observed in Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, AIR 1962 SC 527, at page 532, “ that the Legislature is incapable of contemplating all the possible circumstances which may arise in future litigation and consequently for providing the procedure for them”. Sometimes when a difficult situation arises it may demand such directions being made as would pragmatically meet the ends of the situation and resort can be had to be inherent powers of the Court, if need be, Krishna Iyer, J. in The Newabganj Sagar Mills Co. Ltd. and others v. The Union of India and ors. (1976) 1 SCC 120, held “ The difficulty we face here cannot force us to abandon the inherent powers of the Court to do”, and he quoted Jim. R. Carrigam to say - “The inherent power has its roots in necessity and its breadth is co-extensive with the necessity”. H.R.Khanna, J. observed in M/s Jaipur Mineral Development Syndicate, Jaipur v. The Commissioner of I.T. New Delhi, (1977) 1 SCC 508: “The Courts have power, in the absence of any express or implied prohibition, to pass an order as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. To hold otherwise would result in quite a number of cases in gross miscarriage of justice”. Jurisdiction to pass procedural orders though not specifically contemplated by Statute can be spelled out form what was said by Hidayatullah, J. (as he then was) in Mahant Ram v. Ganga Das, AIR 1961 SC 882, when orders are ‘in essence in terrorem so that dilatory litigants might put themselves in order and avoid delay’ the Courts are not powerless to meet a situation for such orders are not like the law of the Medes and the Persians.” 4. On the contrary, counsel for the landlord has opposed this prayer and placed reliance upon Vinod Kumar Vs. Prem Lata 2003(2) RCR (Rent) SC 329 and Rajan @ Raj Kumar Vs. Rakesh Kumar 2010 (1) RCR (Rent) 386 to contend that as per the binding precedent of Rakesh Wadhawan’s case (supra), the provisional rent has to be deposited once it has been assessed and if the tenant fails to do so, a legal right accrues to him which would entail with the eviction from the premises in question. 5. Rakesh Kumar 2010 (1) RCR (Rent) 386 to contend that as per the binding precedent of Rakesh Wadhawan’s case (supra), the provisional rent has to be deposited once it has been assessed and if the tenant fails to do so, a legal right accrues to him which would entail with the eviction from the premises in question. 5. The submission made by the counsel for the respondent carries weight and is liable to be accepted. This Court in various judgments, has held that rent has to be tendered on the date fixed by the Rent Controller and the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to extend the time and in case the order is not complied with, the Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Rajan @ Raj Kumar (supra) after taking into consideration Vinod Kumar’s case (supra) has held that eviction has to follow and nothing else has to be done. 6. Faced with this situation, Mr.Bhatia contends that this Court has always inherent jurisdiction to extend the time to deposit the rent. This submission cannot be accepted. In case of non-deposit of rent within the specified time, certain right accrues to the landlord which cannot be taken away on the ground of hardship. The rights of the landlord are flowing from the non-payment of the rent. In the present case, arrears of rent are from April 2003 and a period of almost 9 years has elapsed and the rent has not been paid for the premises which are being used for commercial purpose. “The sword of Damocles” has been hanging on the head of the tenant but he has continued to enjoy the premises without payment of any rent and he cannot be entitled to with-hold the payment of rent and pay at his own convenience. It is his own acts and doings which has led to the situation coming to this stage. If the rent had been paid on time, this huge amount of money which is now payable would not have accrued. 7. This Court in Madan Lal & another Vs. Baldev Raj 2004 (2) PLR 834, Sudhir Kumar Vs. Kuldip Singh Malhotra 2010 (4) PLR 658, Mrs. Birinder Khullar Vs. Maninder Singh 2011 (3) PLR 38 & Sanjeet Singh Vs. Mohali Motor Finance Co. 7. This Court in Madan Lal & another Vs. Baldev Raj 2004 (2) PLR 834, Sudhir Kumar Vs. Kuldip Singh Malhotra 2010 (4) PLR 658, Mrs. Birinder Khullar Vs. Maninder Singh 2011 (3) PLR 38 & Sanjeet Singh Vs. Mohali Motor Finance Co. & another, [2011(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2129.] : 2011 (3) PLR 15 has categorically laid down that the Rent Controllers cannot extend the time which has been fixed for the deposit of the rent. Keeping in view the settled position of law, there can be no interference with the orders passed by the Appellate Authority, SAS Nagar, Mohali. 8. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------