CR No. 1663 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 1663 of 2009(O&M) Decided on : 06-12-2010 Rajesh Thakur and others ....Petitioners VERSUS Jangi Lal ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Manuj Nagrath, Advocate for the respondent MAHESH GROVER, J This revision petition is directed against the orders of the learned Rent Controller as also the Appellate Authority ordering the eviction of the petitioners from the demised premises on account of their failure to pay the provisional rent as assessed by the Rent Controller. During the course of proceedings initiated by the respondent- landlord seeking eviction of the petitioners on account of non-payment of rent, change of user and material alteration in the demised premises, the Court assessed the provisional rent at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month. Thereafter, it gave five opportunities to the petitioners to deposit the same. Finding the petitioners to be errant in their approach, the learned Rent Controller relying on the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation 2002 CR No. 1663 of 2009(O&M) 2 (1) RCR (Rent) 514 ordered the eviction of the petitioners. In appeal the findings were affirmed leading to the filing of the instant petition. At the time of issuance of notice of motion on 25.3.2009 by this Court petitioners deposited the arrears of rent and also continued to pay the rent for the subsequent period till March, 2010. It was to be noticed that when the petitioners filed the instant petition, a reference was pending before the Division Bench of this Court which was to the following effect:- “The controversy involved in the present reference arises out of Section 13(2) (i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which reads as under:- “13. Eviction of tenants:- (1) x x x x x x (2) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the applicant, is satisfied:- (i)that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due by him in respect of the building or rented land with fifteen days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy with his landlord or in the absence of any such agreement, by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable; Provided that if the tenant on the first hearing of the application for ejectment after due service pays or tenders the arrears of rent and interest at six per cent per annum and any such arrears together with the cost of application CR No. 1663 of 2009(O&M) 3 assessed by the Controller, the tenant shall be deemed to have duly paid or tendered the rent within the time aforesaid.” The aforesaid reference has since been answered by the Division Bench of this Court and it has been held that if a tenant does not comply with the order of Rent Controller on the first date of hearing and defaults in making the payment of the provisional rent assessed by him then the eviction logically has to follow and the view as expressed by Rakesh Wadhawan's case was specifically approved. Having regard to the aforesaid, it is difficult to appreciate the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that after filing of the revision petition, the petitioners have been paying rent to the respondent and have also cleared the arrears of rent. The fact remains that as per the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan's case it interpreted the provisions of the Rent Act as follows:- “30. To sum up, our conclusions are:- 1. In Section 13(2)(i) proviso, the words 'assessed by the Controller' qualify not merely the words the cost of application but the entire preceding part of the sentence i.e. ' the arrears of rent and interest at six per cent per annum on such arrears together with the cost of application'. 2. The proviso to Section 13(2)(i) of East Restriction Act, 1949 casts an obligation on the Controller to make an assessment of (i) arrears of rent, (ii) the interest on such arrears, and (iii) the cost of application and then quantify by way of an interim or provisional order the amount CR No. 1663 of 2009(O&M) 4 which the tenant must pay or tender on the 'first date of hearing' after the passing of such order of 'assessment' by the Controller so as to satisfy the requirement of the proviso. 3. Of necessity, 'the date of first hearing of the application' would mean the date falling after the date of such order by Controller.” There is thus no ambiguity in the proposition of law and a valuable right which has accrued to the respondent on account of the deficient approach on the part of the petitioners has to be upheld and the case of the petitioners has to be negated. No ground to interfere. Hence, dismissed. December 06, 2010 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge