Eviction--Provisional rent--Tenant has to deposit on the next date of hearing alongwith arrears, interest and costs etc.,--If a tenant fails to deposit the same, nothing remains to be done and an order of ejectment of a tenant has to be passed.
Eviction--Provisional rent--The first date of hearing has also been interpreted to mean, the first date of hearing after determination of provisional rent and other expenses by the Rent Controller.

MUKUL MUDGAL, J.

1. This reference has been made by a learned Single Judge on february 5, 2007 in view of differing interpretations given by two Single judges of this Court, to the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court reported as Rakesh Wadhawan V. M/s Jagdamba Industrial corporation AIR 2002 SC 2004.

2. In the reference order, the learned Single Judge has made reference to a judgment of this Court in case Rajinder Lal V. Gopal krishan (2006-2) P. L. R.124, which the learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon to contend that even if the petitioner had failed to pay the arrears of provisional rent as assessed by the learned Rent controller, an opportunity for regular trial has to be given to the petitioner. The view taken by the learned Single Judge in that judgment is contained in para No.18 which reads thus:-

" 18. After harmoniously construing conclusion Nos.4,5 and 6.1, I am of the opinion that the failure to deposit provisional rent assessed will not entail passing of the eviction order. The eviction order can be passed only after conclusion f the trial after giving opportunities or hearing to the parties as required under Sec.13 (2) of the Act. If, however, the final order of the Rent Controller is in terms of the provisional rent assessed, the tenant is not entitled to any other opportunity to tender rent as he has failed to comply with the order of provisional assessment of rent. But in case, in the final order passed by the Rent Controller, rent determined is less than the order of provisional assessment of rent, the tenant would be entitled to another opportunity to make up the deficiency in respect of such arrears of rent. However, if the amount tendered is in excess, the tenant is entitled to refund. The above conclusion alone would be in tune with the principles of law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court. It is preposterous to say that on failure of payment of provisional rent, i. e. Ad-interim order, the eviction order shall follow without giving a reasonable opportunity to the tenant to controvert the stand of the landlord on the basis of evidence led that such provisional rent was not correctly assessed. "

3. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent has, placed reliance upon judgment of another learned Single Judge reported as Madan Lal and another V. Baldev Raj, (2004-2) P. L. R.834, to contend that the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Rakesh wadhawans case (supra) clearly lays down that in case the tenant fails to make the payment of rent, assessed by the learned Rent Controller provisionally, the order of ejectment has to follow and nothing more is required to be done by the learned Rent Controller.

4. The view taken by the learned Single Judge in Madan Lals case (supra) is to the following effect:-

"8. The Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawans case (supra) has interpreted the provisions of Sec.13 (2) (i) of the Act to conclude that the act has been framed for the benefit of the tenants and, therefore, the tenants should not suffer on account of self assessment or for short tender. On that basis, the provision was so interpreted to conclude that the Rent Controller is under an obligation to pass a provisional order of assessment calling upon the tenants to make payment of rent and if they fail to make payment of rent in accordance with the assessment order, then nothing requires to be done except ordering the tenants eviction."

5. Owing to the aforesaid difference of opinion qua the interpretation of the judgment of Honble the Supreme Court in Rakesh wadhawans case (supra) in the aforesaid two cases, this matter has been referred to this larger Bench for consideration.

6. The controversy involved in the present reference arises out of Sec.13 (2) (i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 , (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which reads as under:-

" 13. Eviction of tenants:-

(1) A tenant in possession of a building or rented land shall not be evicted therefrom in