Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.:- The tenants are in revision against the order dated 23.10.2010, passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, by which an application filed by them to deposit part of rent which was leftover due to bonafide mistake of calculation, was dismissed and order dated 23.10.2010 by which eviction petition of the landlord has been allowed on the ground of short tender having been made on 24.5.2010.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the landlords filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, ‘the Act’) against the tenants on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent of the demised premises, namely Flat No.1244, Progressive House Building Society, Sector 50-B Chandigarh, w.e.f. 11.1.2007 to April 2010. It is alleged in the petition that the landlords had let out the demised premises to the tenants at a monthly rent of Rs.20,000/-. A rebate of Rs.9000/- per month was given out of Rs.20,000/- per month up to 06.8.2007. It was alleged that as per the Rent Deed, rate of rent payable by the tenants to the landlords was Rs.11,000/- per month until 06.8.2007 and from 07.8.2007 onwards at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month. The tenants denied the rate of rent of the demised premises, as alleged by the landlords and averred that rate of rent is Rs.5000/- per month, which they had already paid up to 31.3.2008.

3. The learned Rent Controller found that there was no dispute of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as the execution of the Rent Deed has been admitted but for the denial of rate of rent which was allegedly claimed by the landlords @ Rs.20,000/- per month and @ Rs.5000/- per month by the tenants. So, in these circumstances, vide his order dated 08.4.2010, the learned Rent Controller passed the order of assessment of rent. The relevant portion is reproduced as under:-

“Accordingly, the provisional rate of rent to be paid by the respondent is assessed at the rate of Rs.11,000/- per month and the period for which the respondents are to pay the provisional rent is w.e.f. 11.1.2007 till the month of passing of this order i.e. April 2010, the cost of the application is assessed at Rs.500/- the provisional rent is to be paid alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum”.

On 24.5.2010, the tenants tendered a sum of Rs.3,32,000/- (Rs. three lakh thirty two thousand) as provisional rent. Statement of the Advocate appearing on behalf of the tenant recorded on that date reads as under:-

“I tender the admitted rent as assessed by the Hon’ble Court under protest at the rate of Rs.11,000/- per month for the period from 11.1.2007 to April 2010 alongwith 6% interest and Rs.500/- cost total amounting to Rs.3,32,000/- (Rs. three lakh thirty two thousands) and reserving my right to recover excessive amount for which respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are filing counter claim before this Hon’ble Court”.

4. The learned counsel for the landlords made the following statement :-

“I have received the tendered rent under protest being short, insufficient and invalid”.

On the same date i.e. 24.5.2010, the tenants filed counter claim before the learned Rent Controller, alleging therein that they have already tendered the provisional rent and have the apprehension that the landlord may withdraw the rent petition thereafter, whereas they had already received rent at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month up to 07.9.2007 and issued the receipt. The tenants had claimed that they have made excessive payment in the garb of provisional rent which they have right to recover by way of counter claim.

5. Two days thereafter, the tenants filed an application on 27.5.2010, seeking permission of the learned Rent Controller to tender some more amount of rent which was inadvertently left out at the time of tendering the provisional rent due to mis-calculation. In this application, it was alleged that they have been informed on 26.5.2010 by the learned counsel for the landl