The court clarified the application of Section 7 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, and interpreted Rule 6-D of Order 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the proceeding with a counter claim.

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.

1. Murari Lal, petitioner, now deceased (through his L.Rs.) has filed the instant revision petition against the order dated 18.8.1988 passed by the Additional District Judge, Narnaul (exercising the powers of the Appellate Authority) under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) vide which the order dated 14.10.1987 passed by the Rent Controller was set aside and the claim of the petitioner for refund/adjustment of the excess rent, alleged to have been paid by the petitioner, was declined while holding that no excess rent was paid/tendered by the petitioner.

2. In the instant case, the respondents-landlords filed an ejectment application against the petitioner-tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent and on the ground that the demised premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Regarding rent, it was pleaded that the petitioner-tenant was in arrears of rent from 6.10.1981 to 5.6.1982 and the monthly rent of the demised premises was claimed as Rs. 45/- plus house tax. The petitioner- tenant contested the aforesaid ejectment application. On the first date of hearing, the petitioner-tenant tendered the rent as claimed by the respondents-landlords, i.e. at the rate of Rs. 45/- per month. Though he did not dispute the period of non-payment of rent yet he contested the rate of rent, which, according to him was Rs. 17/-, 14 annas and 9 paise per month, which was fixed as a fair rent in the year 1951. He also refuted the claim of the respondents-landlords that the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation.

3. On the pleadings of the parties, various issues were framed by the Rent Controller. On 21.12.1982, when the case was fixed for hearing, the counsel for the respondents-landlords made a statement that he had no instructions to proceed further with the case.

Thereupon, the counsel for the petitioner pleaded that since a counter claim had been made in the written statement by the petitioner-tenant, therefore, the ejectment petition cannot be dismissed as not pressed, as the counter claim filed by the petitioner-tenant has to be adjudicated. Thereupon, the learned Rent Controller ordered that the counter claim filed by the petitioner-tenant be treated as a petition and notice of the same was ordered to be served upon the respondents-landlords. In support of his counter claim, the petitioner-tenant led some evidence. Thereafter, the respondents-landlords were provided an opportunity to lead the evidence. However, their evidence was closed by order of the court. The learned Rent Controller vide his order dated 14.10.1987 allowed the counter claim filed by the petitioner-tenant while holding that the rate of rent of the demised premises was Rs. 17/-, 14 annas and 9 paise per month, and ordered that the excess amount of rent paid by the petitioner-tenant shall be adjusted towards the future rent payable by the tenant.

4. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the respondents-landlords filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority along with an application for additional evidence. The application for additional evidence was allowed by the Appellate Authority and the respondents-landlords were permitted to place on record the certified copy of the petition filed by the respondents- landlords, i.e. petition No. 110 of 1981, titled `Om Parkash and others v. Murari Lal, certified copy of the statement of the Advocate of the petitioner-tenant in that ejectment application, and the certified copy of the order of the Rent Controller dated 19.12.1981 passed in that case. The learned Appellate Authority after going through the aforesaid documents has held that the rate of rent of the demised premises was Rs. 45/- per month and, therefore, the petitioner tenant did not tender any excess rent to the respondents-landlords. The said order has been impugned in the instant revision petition.

5. The learned counsel for the p