The tenant must deposit the provisional rent as assessed by the Rent Controller on the first date of hearing, and failure to do so warrants an ejectment order.

JUDGMENT

Namit Kumar, J. - The instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the 1949 Act) impugning the order dated 19.04.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by Rent Controller, Jalandhar, in Rent Petition No.202 of 2014 titled "Paramjit Kaur v. Parkash Jewellers", whereby application filed by the petitioner/landlord for ejectment of the respondent/tenant on account of non-deposit of provisional assessed rent, has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts relevant for the disposal of the present revision petition are that petitioner/landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the 1949 Act for ejectment of the respondent/tenant from the shops shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the petition, situated at Gujrat Complex, Rainak Bazar, Jalandhar, on the ground of arrears of rent. Learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar, vide order dated 19.01.2018 provisionally assessed the rent and directed the respondent/tenant to make the payment on the next date of hearing i.e. 19.03.2018. Respondent/tenant challenged the said order by way of appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was dismissed vide order dated 01.09.2018. However, on 19.03.2018 respondent/tenant did not deposit the provisional rent as assessed by the Rent Controller vide order dated 19.01.2018. Consequently, petitioner/landlord filed an application for passing of ejectment order against the respondent/tenant for non-tendering the provisionally assessed rent. The Rent Controller vide impugned order dated 19.04.2022 dismissed the application of the petitioner/landlord and directed that the demand draft already tendered by the respondent-tenant on 28.03.2018 be re-validated on or before 02.05.2022.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Rent Controller has wrongly dismissed the application of the petitioner for ejectment of the respondent for non-payment of provisional rent on the first date of hearing inasmuch as no stay was operating against order dated 19.01.2018 whereby provisional rent was assessed by the Rent Controller. He further contended that respondent/tenant was liable to tender arrears of provisional rent on the first date of hearing after the date of assessment of the same i.e. on 19.03.2018. He further contended that respondent/tenant gave a wrong statement before the Rent Controller with regard to stay of the order of provisional assessment of rent and got the case adjourned. He further contended that impugned order passed by the Rent Controller is erroneous and not sustainable in the eyes of law. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in Rajan alias Raj Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar, 2010(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 386; Anil Kumar v. Ghanshyam Dass, 2012(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 153; Dharam Vir v. Raj Kumar Book Binder, 2012(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 546 and Vijay Singla v. Lajwanti (since deceased through her LRs) and others, 2022(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 247.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent refuted the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that order passed by the Rent Controller rejecting the application of the petitioner for ejectment of the respondent is legal and valid.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. In the present case, provisional rent was assessed by the Rent Controller on 19.01.2018 and respondent was directed to make the payment of the same on the next date of hearing i.e. 19.03.2018. However, on 19.03.2018, respondent/tenant made the following statement before the Rent Controller: -

"Statement of Anil Parkash Prop. M/s Parkash Jewellers respondent along with counsel.

Stated that a civil revision bearing no.6235/17 filed before Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana against the order of dismissal of application under Order 6 Rule 17 was filed by me which was fixed today. I have received telephonic information from my counsel in High Court that H