Non-compliance with the provisional rent assessment under Section 13(2)(i) of the Haryana Rent Act justified the tenant's ejectment, as per the interpretation of the law laid down by the Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT

Alka Sarin, J. (Oral) - The present revision petition has been filed against the orders of ejectment dated 24.08.2021 and 06.05.2022 passed by the Rent Controller, Jind and the Appellate Authority, Jind, respectively.

2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the landlordrespondent filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Haryana Rent Act') for ejectment of the tenant-petitioner from Shop Nos.4 and 5 of Chhotu Ram Kisan College, Jind situated at Railway Road, Jind, described fully in the ejectment petition. The Rent Controller, Jind vide order dated 09.08.2021 had assessed the provisional rent along with interest and costs as Rs. 92788.65 paise and the tenant-petitioner was given 15 days' time for tendering the same and the matter was adjourned to 24.08.2021. The tenant-petitioner failed to deposit the provisional rent and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan Vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation [2002(5) SCC 440], vide order dated 24.08.2021 ejectment of the tenant-petitioner was ordered and the tenant-petitioner was directed to vacate the premises within two months. Aggrieved by the said order, the tenant-petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and during the pendency of the appeal the landlord-respondent filed an application for directions to the tenantpetitioner to pay mesne profits @ Rs. 8600/- per month for use and occupation of the premises w.e.f. 25.08.2021 till delivery of the possession. The landlord-respondent took a stand that the provisional rent as assessed by the Rent Controller, Jind had not been paid nor the vacant possession of the premises was handed over to the landlord-respondent. The appeal filed by the tenant-petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 06.05.2022.

3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner that he was never informed of the order dated 09.08.2021 assessing the provisional rent. Learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner has further contended that the tenant-petitioner is ready to deposit the entire arrears of rent and that the same could not be deposited due to the prevailing circumstances created because of Covid-19 Pandemic.

4. Heard.

5. In the present case, the Rent Controller, Jind vide order dated 09.08.2021 had assessed the provisional rent after hearing the arguments from both sides and the provisional rate of rent along with interest and costs had been assessed as Rs. 92788.65 paise and the tenant-petitioner was given 15 days' time to tender the rent on or before 24.08.2021. However, on 24.08.2021 the provisional rent as assessed was not deposited by the tenantpetitioner. It was upon the failure of the tenant-petitioner to deposit the provisional rent that ejectment order was passed in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan (supra). Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan (supra) has laid down as under :

'30. To sum up, our conclusions are:

1. In Section 13(2)(i) proviso, the words "assessed by the Controller" qualify not merely the words "the cost of application" but the entire preceding part of the sentence i.e. "the arrears of rent and interest at six per cent per annum on such arrears together with the cost of application".

2. The proviso to Section 13(2)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 casts an obligation on the Controller to make an assessment of (i) arrears of rent, (ii) the interest on such arrears, and (iii) the cost of application and then quantify by way of an interim or provisional order the amount which the tenant must pay or tender on the "first date of hearing" after the passing of such order of "assessment" by the Controller so as to satisfy the requirement of the proviso.

3. Of necessity, "the date of first hearing of the application" would mean the date falling after the date of such o