Failure to challenge a provisional assessment order for rent before an eviction order is passed precludes the tenant from questioning the eviction or the amount of rent payable.

JUDGMENT

Harkesh Manuja, J. - By way of present revision petition, the petitioners-tenants have challenged the eviction, ordered against them on the basis of order dated 30.01.2014 passed by learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana, upheld vide order dated 04.08.2015 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Ludhiana.

2. In the present case, the respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition against the petitioners on the ground of non-payment of rent. Vide order dated 06.01.2014, the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana, assessed provisional rent to the tune of Rs.5,87,500/-along with interest & costs of the proceedings and the matter was adjourned to 30.01.2014, for payment of the amount assessed. On the date fixed i.e. 30.01.2014, petitioners did not deposit the amount, as such, on account of non-compliance of the provisional assessment order, eviction was passed against the petitioners and they were directed to hand over the vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the respondent herein.

3. It would be relevant to mention here that between 06.01.2014 to 30.01.2014, the petitioner-tenant did not question the validity of the provisional assessment order passed against it by the learned Rent Controller on 06.01.2014, neither on the ground of fraud nor regarding quantum of rent payable. Subsequently, the eviction order dated 30.01.2014 was challenged by way of first appeal filed before the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana. However, relying upon the ratio of law decided in case of 'Rakesh Wadhawan vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, 2002 (1) RCR, 266 (SC), the appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed mentioning therein that once the tenant had failed to deposit the provisional rent assessed by the learned Rent Controller, an order of eviction had to follow.

4. In the present revision petition, the petitioners have challenged two orders dated 30.01.2014 and 04.08.2015 passed by learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana and the learned Appellate Authority, Ludhiana respectively.

5. It has been contended on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioners that the tenancy was terminated on its behalf through letter dated 30.09.2004, vide which, three months notice was given to the respondent/landlord regarding termination of tenancy w.e.f. 01.01.2005. In view thereof, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that once the tenancy stood terminated w.e.f. 01.01.2005, the tenants were not supposed to pay any rent after that date and, as such, the eviction petition filed at the instance of respondent/landlord was liable to be dismissed.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon judgment passed by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in 'Rajan @ Raj Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar, 2010 (2) PLR 201, to contend that once the petitioners failed to challenge the validity of assessment of provisional rent determined vide order dated 06.01.2014, prior to the passing of the eviction order dated 30.01.2014, they were estopped from questioning the amount payable by it as rent and eviction was to follow. He relied upon para 13 and 14 of the aforesaid judgment to support his contention, which reads as under:-

'13. This Court is of the view that the ratio of judgment in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra) leaves no manner of doubt that the provisional rent and other ancillary charges assessed by the Rent Controller had to be deposited by the tenant on the next date of hearing alongwith arrears, interest and costs etc., as may be determined by the above said authority. The 'first date of hearing' has also been interpreted to mean, the first date of hearing after determination of provisional rent and other expenses by the Rent Controller. A reading of conclusions drawn in para No. 30 of the judgment in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra) leaves no doubt that if after determination of the provisional rent, a tenant fails to deposit the same, nothing remains to be done and an order of ejectment of a tenant has to be passed. The language of conc