JUDGMENT

SAWANT, J.:— This is a tenant appeal against the order of the High Court rejecting his writ petition summarily wherein he had challenged the order passed by the authorities under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") evicting him from the suit premises. The relevant facts are that the respondent landlady had filed an application before the Rent Controller seeking eviction of the appellant, among other things, under S. 13(2)(i) of the Act since he was in arrears of rent from February 1, 1978 to May 4, 1982. The landlady had also sought his eviction on two other grounds, viz., she wanted the suit premises for her personal occupation and that the tenant was a nuisance to the neighbouring occupants. Since the two latter grounds were negatived and ultimately the decree was passed by the Rent Controller and was confirmed by the Appellate Authority only on the ground of the arrears of rent, we are not concerned here with the said grounds.

2. The facts relating to the arrears of rent as found by the authorities are that the respondent-landladys husband, Jagmohan Lal had on her behalf rented out the premises to the appellant at the monthly rent of Rs. 200/-. Jagmohan Lal died in 1978. According to the landlady the appellant did not pay the rent to her since February 1, 1978 till the date of her application for ejectment. The appellants defence to the application was that he had taken the premises on rent from Jagmohan Lal. He denied that Jagmohan Lal had acted on behalf of the respondent - landlady. In short, he refused to recognise the respondent as his landlady. He also contended that the rent was Rs. 150/ - per month and that he was in arrears of rent only for one month, viz., from May 1, 1982 to May 31, 1982 and that he had tendered the said rent in the Court on the date of the first hearing before the Rent Controller.

3. The Rent Controller found that the rent of the premises was Rs. 150/ - per month and not Rs. 200/- as contended by the landlady. But he also found that the appellant: was in arrears of rent from February 1, 1978 and not, as contended by him, for only one month, viz., May, 1982. This finding was confirmed by the Appellate Authority.

4. On this finding the contention raised by Mr. Nesargi, counsel for the appellant was that since the rate of rent was in dispute the provisions of S. 13(2)(i) of the Act were not attracted and, hence, no order of eviction could be passed against the appellant. In this connection, he emphasised the fact that whereas the landlady had demanded rent at the rate of Rs. 200/ - per month, the Rent Controller had found that the rent was Rs. 150/- per month. Hence, it could not be said that the demand of the rent by the landlady was legal. His second contention was that since, the tenant had tendered the rent as calculated by him on the first hearing of the application no order of eviction could be passed against him. In support of this submission he pointed out that the proviso to 13(2)(i) of the Act merely states that "if the tenant on the first hearing of the application......... pays or tenders the arrears of rent etc. ", the tenant shall be deemed to have duly paid or tendered the rent and he was not liable to be evicted. The proviso, according to him, does not mention that what is to be paid or tendered is the rent as demanded by the landlord. It merely uses the expression "the arrears of rent", and hence the tenant would be saved from the penal consequences of the non-payment of rent if he pays or tenders the arrears of rent, if any, as calculated by him. His third submission was that since the rent was disputed and at least a part of the dispute, viz., relating to the rate of rent, was found in favour of the tenant, the Rent Controller ought to have given time to the tenant to pay the rent calculated at the correct rate and only if the tenant had not paid the correctly calculated rent within the time so fixed by the Rent Controller