(1.) In the on-going controversy between the parties (landlord and tenant), the provisional rent (alongwith interest and costs) came to be assessed by the learned Rent Controller, vide order dated 27.10.2008 and the matter was adjourned for tender. There was controversy about the rate at which rent was payable. Landlord claimed that the rent at the rate of Rs. 8500/- was payable; whereas the plea raised by the tenant was that the rate of rent had been fixed at rate of Rs. 2000A per month. A part of the rent was paid up on 27.10.2008 and accepted by the petitioner-landlord under protest. It was thereafter that the petitioner-landlord filed an application for ejectment forthwith of the respondent-tenant on account of the non payment in entirety of the provisional assessed rent etc. The plea did not find favour with the learned Rent Controller who negatived it by observing that the controversy about rent could be decided only after the parties have had an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their respective plea at the trial.
(2.) Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner landlord (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner") argued that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Rakesh Wadhawan v. Jagdamba Industrial Corproation, 2002 5 SCC 440 and a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Revision No. 3577 of 2006 (Rajan alias Raj Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar), it is incumbent upon the Rent Controller to evict the tenant forthwith if the provisionally assessed rent (interest and costs etc.) is not paid on the first date of hearing. Reliance, in support of the projected view, is placed upon Vinod Kumar v. Prem Lata,2003 2 RCR 329.
(3.) The plea was resisted by the learned Senior Counsel who appeared on behalf of the respondent-tenant and argued that in the given situation, it was incumbent upon the learned Rent Controller to finally determine the controversy on the conclusion of the trial and, then, afford an opportunity to the tenant to pay up or face eviction in default thereof.