M.M.PUNCHHI, J.

1. Since doubt was entertained by S.P. Goyal, J. with regard to the correctness of the rule propounded in Nasib Singh V/s. Om Parkash. (1979) 81 Punj LR 502 : (AIR 1979 Punj and Har 96) this petition for revision was admitted by him to a Division Bench. Hence the listing of the petition before us.

2. Facts giving rise thereto are plain and simple. The landlord-respondent had sought eviction of the tenant-petitioner s before the Rent Controller, Narwana on a variety of grounds. One such ground was that the tenant had not paid or tendered the rent due to him and was thus in arrears from 1-3-1978 till date. The rate of rent claimed was Rs. 110/-. The tenant while denying the allegations in the eviction petition claimed in his written statement that the rate of rent was Rs. 75/- per mensem. All the same to avoid eviction, the tenant availed of the first proviso to S.13(2)(i) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (briefly referred to as the Act) by making payment of the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 110/- per mensem as asked for. Having warded off summary eviction, the tenant applied to the Rent Controller that an issue be struck whic