Failure to comply with the provisional order of assessment for rent under the Rent Restriction Act can lead to eviction, and no extension can be granted for depositing the arrears of rent.

M.M.Kumar, J.

1. This is tenants petition filed under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity, the Act) challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below holding that the tenant-petitioners have failed to make payment of rent as assessed by the Rent Controller vide his order dated 5.5.2003 and consequently their ejectment was ordered. Both the Courts have found that the tenants were liable to pay rent from 1.1.1993 till the date of assessment order i.e. 5.5.2003. The observations made by the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan and Ors. v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and Ors., (2002-2)131 P.L.R. 370 (S.C.) have been followed because the tenant-petitioners have failed to comply with the provisional order of assessment dated 5.5.2003.

2. Brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of the instant petition are that the landlord-respondent filed an ejectment petition on 28.11.2002 under Section 13 of the Act seeking ejectment of the tenant-petitioners inter alia on the ground that the tenant-petitioners had taken the demised premises on rent on 1.8.1993 on an agreed rate of Rs. 600/- p.m. along with house tax at the rate of 10 per cent. He claimed arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.4.1993 and sought ejectment on that ground. The tenant-petitioners contested the claim made by the landlord-respondent and asserted that they have been paying rent regularly without fail and the rent was paid upto August, 2002. The learned Rent Controller vide his order dated 5.5.2003 made assessment of the provisional rent at the rate of Rs. 600/- p.m. from 1.1.1993 to 31.5.2003 and directed the tenant-petitioners to pay the arrears. Order dated 5.5.2003 reads as under:-

"Consideration for the purpose of assessing rate of rent is heard. On going through the pleadings as well as of argument of counsel for the parties, it is clear that there is no dispute over the rate of rent Rs. 600/- per month. Rent has been claimed w.e.f. 1.1.1993. In reply it has been submitted that in fact rent stood paid and no receipt has been issued by the landlord. This fact has been categorically denied by the petitioner. It is settled principle of law the payment of rent is to be proved by the tenant. At this stage, there is no document or proof of rent. In the circumstances it is provisionally the rate of rent is Rs. 600/- per month is due from 1.1.1993. The interest will be payable at the rate of 6% per annum with Rs. 500/- as costs assessed in the presence of both counsel for the parties and it is found that from 1.1.1993 to 31.5.2003 @ Rs. 600/-as arrears of rent with interest as Rs. 23,438/- and adding Rs. 500/-, we find total provisionally due amount against respondent is Rs. 98,939/-. Now to come upon 5.6.2003 for payment."

3. On 5.6.2003 instead of making payment of the aforesaid amount, the tenant-petitioners moved an application for recalling the order dated 5.5.2003. Reply to the application was filed and on 23.12.2003, the application for recalling the order dated 5.5.2003 field by the tenant-petitioners was dismissed. By a separate order the Rent Controller also allowed the petition of the landlord-respondent and ordered ejectment of the tenant-petitioners. The tenant-petitioners were directed to vacate the demised premises and hand over its vacant possession to the landlord-respondent within three months from the order i.e. 23.12.2003. Aggrieved against the aforementioned order, the tenant-petitioners filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority which upheld the view taken by the Rent Controller by placing heavy reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan (supra). Referring to the observations of the Supreme Court made in Vinod Kumars case (infra), M/s Rubber Houses case (infra) and Rajinder Kumar Joshis case (infra), the Appellate Authority observed as under:-

"Such like eventualities were taken into account by their Lordships of the Honble Supreme Court of India wh