BALWINDER KUMAR Vs. MADAN MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in the present revision petition is to the order of ejectment passed against the petitioner on account of non-payment of arrears of rent on the first date of hearing.

(2.) AS per the case set up by the landlord, the petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the demised premises in the month of May, 1981 at a monthly rent of Rs. 195/-. The terms of the tenancy were reduced into writing subsequently on 21.8.1985. Later on, the Municipal Corporation levied the house tax. A notice dated 27.4.1984 was served upon the landlord demanding the said house tax. Thus, the landlord sought ejectment of the tenant, inter alia, on the ground of non-payment of rent inclusive of house tax since 1.4.1994. But tenant in his reply denied the liability to pay the house tax but tendered arrears of rent on the first date of hearing.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Rakesh Wadhawan and others v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and others, 2002(1) RCR(Rent) 514 (SC) : 2002(5) SCC 440 to contend that in terms of proviso to Section 13(2)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act'), the Rent Controller is to make an assessment of arrears of rent, interest on such arrears and the costs of application and then quantify by way of an interim or provisional order, the amount which the tenant himself pay or tender on the first date of hearing i.e. after passing of such order of assessment by the Controller. If the final adjudication by the Controller is at variance with his interim or provisional order passed under the proviso, one of the orders that can be passed is a conditional order granting liberty to the tenant to make up the deficient amount failing which alone, he shall be liable to be evicted. Compliance shall save him from eviction.