A tenant is entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Section 13(2)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act if he tenders the rent due up to the date of filing the ejectment application, along with interest and costs, on the first date of hearing, even if the landlord has not disclosed the date of filing the application in the petition.

M.S.Liberhan, J.

1. This revision petition has arisen from the order of ejectment by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, dated 23-11-1984 and affirmed by the Appellate Authority.

2. The ejectment was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent since 1-1-1983 at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month.

3. The tenant refuted the grounds of ejectment. It was averred that the rent has been tendered as claimed in the petition along with interest and costs.

4. It would be expedient to reproduce the only surviving plea as taken in the ejectment application and the sequences of subsequent events which followed the filing of the ejectment application, in order to answer the questions raised by the parties :-

"3. The respondents are liable for ejectment from the demised premises on the following grounds :-

(1) that respondent No. 1 has not paid or tendered the rent in respect of the demised premises since first of January, 1983, at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- to the applicant."

The ejectment application bears the date 30-5-1983. Similarly the facts averred are verified to be true and correct on 30-5-1983 at Chandigarh. So far sequel of events subsequent to the filing of the application are concerned, they are to the effect that the application was presented before the Rent Controller on 17-9-1983 who after perusal of the office report ordered that the petition be registered and summons be issued to the respondent for 28-10-1983. In compliance with the said order, notice was issued to the respondents. It runs as under :-

"You are hereby directed to appear before me this Court on 28-10-1983 at 10.00 A.M. in the above noted case as......otherwise proceedings will be taken (not legible) according to law. Given under my hand and seal of the this 17-9-1983."

Along with the notice a copy of the ejectment petition was served on the tenant.

On 28-10-1983, Counsel for the parties appeared before the Rent Controller who assessed the costs at Rs. 30/-. Counsel for the respondents tendered Rs. 5,000/- on account of rent with effect from 1-1-1983 to 31-5-1983; Rs. 245/- as interest and Rs. 30/- as costs, which was accepted by the counsel for the landlady under protest being insufficient, short and invalid. The case was adjourned to 9-11-1983 for filing of written statement.

5. The, Rent Controller found, that since it was the duty of the tenant to pay rent upto date of filing the ejectment application, the tender made was short hence he was liable for ejectment. It was observed by the Rent Controller that it was the duty of the tenant to make the tender upto the date of filing the petition in the Court i.e. 16-9-1983 though the original as well as copy of the ejectment petition served on the tenant bore the date as 30-5-1985. If the tenant wanted to take benefit of the proviso to Section 13(2)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), then the tenant should have been vigilant and tendered the rent upto the date of filing the petition, it was further observed that as no plea was taken by the respondent in the written statement that he was misled on account of any fraud played by the-landlady upon him, the same cannot be gone into. No evidence beyond the pleadings can be looked into. It was further observed that the tenant should have inspected the file and taken a plea in the written statement with regard to fraud etc.

6. The Appellate Authority addressed himself to the validity of the tender made and observed that it was the duty of tenant to ascertain the arrears of the rent due from him when the ejectment application was filed against the tenant. It was observed that it was desirable on the part of the landlady to have mentioned the date of filing the petition i.e. 16-9-1983 under the date 30-5-1983. Still if the landlady has failed to do so, the tenant cannot take advantage from it. He was under legal obligation to tender the rent due upto the date of filing the ejectment application along with interest and