The tenant remains liable to pay rent even after lease termination, and the Rent Controller can assess provisional rent, ensuring compliance with tenancy laws.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Jain, J.

Tenant is in revision aggrieved of order dated 29.05.2024 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Appellate Authority, Gurugram whereby order dated 16.04.2024 (Annexure P-5) passed by Rent Controller, Gurugram stands affirmed in part.

2. Landlord filed eviction petition against the tenant under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short ‘the 1973 Act’) read with 1976 Rules claiming that the respondent was inducted as tenant by his father vide lease deed dated 15.10.2002 for a period of twenty years at a monthly rent of Rs.42,500/- with an escalation clause of 5% per year till the end of 10" year. It was further agreed that the terms of tenancy will be reviewed at the end of 10 years with mutual consent. Eviction has been sought on ground of non-payment of rent. Landlord claimed unpaid rent for the period commencing from 30.06.2020 till 14.10.2022. The eviction petition was filed in November, 2022.

3 Tenant filed written statement. Rent Controller vide order dated 16.04.2024 assessed the arrears of rent till April 2024 including the rent pendent lite i.e. for the period from November, 2022 to April 2024. The Rent Controller found that the tenant was required to pay an amount of Rs.26,15,000/- which included arrears of rent, interest and cost. The tenant was directed to tender rent on or before 01.05.2024.

4 Tenant preferred appeal. Appellate Authority found that there was a miscalculation and corrected the arithmetic error holding the tenant liable to pay an amount of Rs.24,04,066/-.

5. Learned Senior counsel for the tenant has assailed the impugned order claiming that the authorities below have gone beyond the prayer made in the eviction petition.

6. Mr. Sunil Chadha, Senior Advocate submits that from eviction petition it is evident that the rent claimed was only for the period commencing from 30.06.2020 till 14.10.2022. It has been contended that as per settled law, authorities cannot travel beyond the prayer. Thus the rent pendent lite assessed by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the Appellate Authority cannot be sustained.

7. He also submits that as per the case pleaded by the landlord, lease deed stands terminated on 27.07.2022 and thus the landlord is not entitled for rent thereafter. He can only claim mesne profit. He further submits that landlord himself has filed application for fixation of fair rent. Till the said application is decided the petitioner cannot be asked to tender rent.

8. In order to substantiate his contentions, learned senior counsel has relied upon Dr. N.K. Sood Vs. Smt. Tara Wati & anr., 1992(1) RCR (Rent) 55, Sunder Krishan Vs. Murari Lal, 2003(1) RCR (Rent) 239, Sat Pal Vs. Kesar Singh, 1968 PLR 834, Neera Chadha Vs. Smt. Pardeep Kaur @ Pooja, 2021 (1) RCR (Rent) 366 and Shrimati Manjit Kaur Vs. Rajinder Singh Doctor & sons, 1977 PLR 707.

9. Per contra, Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate appearing for the landlord submits that it is not in dispute that the petitioner-tenant is still in possession of the demised premises. It is also admitted that the tenant has not paid rent during the pendency of the eviction petition. Thus Rent Controller has rightly assessed the provisional rent including the rent pendent lite and directed the tenant-petitioner to tender the same. He further refers to definition of tenant as enumerated under Section 2(h) of the 1973 Act to submit that the determination of lease would not absolve petitioner of his liability to pay rent. Even after termination of tenancy a tenant in possession of the suit property remains a tenant until he is ordered to be evicted. He further submits that precise issue came up for consideration before Coordinate Bench of this Court in M/s Queen Distillers and Bottlers Pvt. Ltd. Works Vs. M/s Kuldip Industrial Corporation and others, 2024(2) RCR (Rent) 185 and M/s Ghar Shingar Paints and others Vs. Parminder Kaur, passed in CR No.4826 of 2022 decided on 29.10.2022 wherein this Court held that the Rent Controlle