Failure to deposit the provisional rent as assessed by the Rent Controller makes the tenant liable for eviction, despite the pendency of an appeal.

JUDGMENT

Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) - All the above mentioned revision petitions shall stand disposed of by this common order as the parties involved are the same and the issue involved too is identical.

2. All the above mentioned revision petitions have been filed against the impugned order of the Rent Controller, Ludhiana as well as the Appellate Authority upholding the eviction order passed against the petitioner-tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent.

3. For the convenience of the Court, the facts are taken from Civil Revision-7058 of 2015.

4. The petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 was filed against the petitioner-tenant on the ground of arrears of rent and personal necessity. It was alleged in the eviction petition that the rent was @ Rs.3,000/- per month and the petitioner-tenant was in arrears of rent w.e.f. 20.1.2005. The Rent Controller passed the order of provisional rent by taking the rent as Rs.3,000/- per month. The petitioner-tenant did not tender the arrears of the assessed provisional rent. Accordingly, the ejectment order was passed against the petitioner-tenant. The petitioner-tenant chose to file appeal against the order of the ejectment. The same came to be dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana vide judgment and order dated 14.8.2014.

5. The present revision petitions are, therefore, filed on the ground that once he had challenged the order of provisional assessment of rent by way of appeal, he cannot be evicted till as such time the appeal is decided and opportunity is thereafter granted to him to make the payment and since in the present case, he had filed an appeal against the fixation of the provisional rent which was excessive, the order of eviction could not have been passed against him.

6. The only question, therefore, requires to be determined in the present revision petitions is as to whether the order of eviction can be passed during the pendency of the appeal against the order of eviction which was passed on the basis of non-payment of the provisional rent which is also the subject matter of challenge before the Appellate Authority in the appeal.

7. Reliance is placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Harjit Singh Uppal vs. Anup Bansal, 2011(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 247 to contend that the order of determination of provisional rent is an interlocutory order and, therefore, there is no impediment in his way to challenge the same in the appeal against the final order of eviction and his eviction could not have been ordered while he was availing the statutory right of his appeal. There was no reason for him to deposit the rent when the very rent was under challenge and had not been determined.

8. As per the judgment rendered in the case of Harjit Singh Uppal (supra), the right to challenge the provisional rent is not lost by way of filing appeal. There is no dispute with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Harjit Singh Uppal (supra) laying down the law that the tenant in an appeal against the order of eviction is entitled to question the correctness of the order of provisional assessment as the appeal is his statutory right. However, what has to be determined in this case is whether the tenant is required to pay the provisional rent before filing the appeal or not.

9. The position that emerges in law as held by the judicial pronouncements of this High Court as well as by the Hon'ble Apex Court is that in case the tenant does not deposit the rent so determined on or before the first hearing of the application for ejectment, he is entitled to be evicted on the ground of non-payment of the rent/provisional rent determined by the Rent Controller. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, 2002(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 514 has already clarified the position as under:-

"To sum up, our conclusions are:

1. In Sec