Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.: - The landlord is in revision against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, by which order of learned Rent Controller dated 12.4.2010 has been set aside and the case has been remanded for fresh disposal in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan & others Vs. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation & others (2002-2) Punjab Law Reporter 370.

2. In brief , facts of the case are that the petitioner/landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short,’the Act’) in respect of the demised premises (shop) which was let out to the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.6000/-, on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.09.2006 and that the respondent is planning to sublet the demised premises to some other person without his consent.

3. In reply, the tenant admitted the tenancy but disputed the rate of rent. According to him, the rate of rent was Rs.3000/- per month which is alleged to have been paid up-to-date but the landlord has not issued rent receipts. It was denied that he is trying to sublet the demised premises to some other person, as alleged.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed the issues and both the parties led their respective evidence.

5. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition on the ground that the landlord has not been able to prove the rate of rent of Rs.6000/- per month and that it has not been paid by the tenant w.e.f. 01.9.2006. In respect of the second contention that the respondent is trying to sublet the demised premises without his consent was not found to be a ground of eviction.

6. The landlord being aggrieved against the order of learned Rent Controller, filed the statutory appeal in which it was categorically argued that vide order dated 17.10.2008, the learned Rent Controller had assessed the provisional rent @ Rs.6000/-per month for the period from 01.09.2006 to 24.9.2008, interest was calculated as Rs.13,000/- and costs of the petition was fixed as Rs.1000/-, total amounting to Rs.1,64,000/- was to be paid by the tenant on the first date of hearing and which was admittedly not tendered. Thus, it was submitted that the Rent Controller has not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter, otherwise, the tenant could have been evicted on this ground alone.

7. Learned Appellate Authority has though noticed this argument and has observed as under:-

“Learned Rent Controller assessed the total amount of Rs.1,64,000/- on a separate sheet of paper in the manner given as under:-

A. Rate of rent Rs.6000/- P.M.

B. Arrears of rent for the

period of 1.9.2006 to.24.9.2008 Rs.150000/-

-25 Months

C. Rent @ of 6%

Procedure of Rent Act Rs.13000/-

25+1 = 1 50000 x 26

300 300

D. Cost: Rs.1000/-

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total: Rs.164000/-

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. However, the order dated 17.10.2008 is altogether silent as to on what basis and in what manner, provisional or interim rate of rent was assessed. There is only reference that rent proceedings done and now, to come up on 30.10.2008 for tendering of rent and for filing written statement, if any. The order for assessing the interim or provisional arrears of rent, interest on such arrears and cost of the application should have been specific, but no specific order in that regard was passed”.

9. The learned Appellate Authority has further observed that if the tenant fails to tender the rent, nothing remains to be done and order of eviction shall follow but the learned Rent Controller proceeded with the petition despite non-payment of the amount by the tenant, framed the issues, recorded the evidence and then finally decided the petition in which he has not decided as to what was the agreed rate of rent between the parties