JUDGMENT :

Vikram Aggarwal, J. (Oral)

1. The present revision petition assails the order dated 27.05.2024 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner-tenant against the order dated 16.04.2024 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Court of learned Rent Controller, Yamunanagar vide which the petitioner-tenant was ordered to be evicted from the tenanted premises.

2. The facts, as borne out from the revision petition, are that a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short 'the Rent Act') (Annexure P-1) was moved by the respondent-landlord for eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the house No.480-L situated at Model Town, Yamunanagar (hereinafter referred to as the 'demised premises) on the ground of non-payment of rent. The eviction was resisted by the petitioner-tenant by filing a reply (Annexure P-2). Vide order dated 02.04.2024 (Annexure P-3), provisional assessment of rent was made and the case was fixed for 16.04.2024 for tender of the provisional rent. On 16.04.2024, rent was not tendered and instead, an application for grant of one month time to deposit the provisional rent was moved which was declined and eviction order was passed. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal (Annexure P-5) was preferred which has also been dismissed by the Appellate Authority, leading to the filing of the present revision petition.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the orders passed by the Court of learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority are not sustainable for, in terms of the proviso to Section 13(2)(i) of the Rent Act, 15 days period had to be granted from the first hearing for tender of rent. He submits that since the provisional rent was assessed on 02.04.2024 and the date for tender of the same was fixed as 16.04.2024, 15 days period was not granted which is in violation of the statutory provision and, therefore, the rights and interests of the petitioner-tenant have been prejudiced. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner-tenant is willing to tender the entire outstanding amount within a period of 24 hours.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned decisions for, in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Rakesh Wadhawan and Others Vs. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and Others', (2002) 5 SCC 440 and other judgments on the subject, the amount had to be tendered on the date fixed by the Rent Controller after the assessment of provisional rent. He submits that after the assessment of rent on 02.04.2024, the matter was fixed for 16.04.2024 thereby granting a period of 15 days to the petitioner-tenant for tender of rent. He submits that even on 16.04.2024, it was never the contention before the Court of learned Rent Controller that 15 days had not been granted and instead, an application for the grant of one more month was moved. He submits that under the circumstances, the eviction order was rightly passed by both the Courts. He further submits that the order dated 02.04.2024 vide which the provisional rent was assessed has never been challenged till date and it is only the eviction order which is under challenge.

6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

7. Admittedly, the eviction petition was filed on the ground of non-payment of rent. On 02.04.2024, the provisional rent was assessed and after calculating the rate of rent and interest, the total came to Rs, 1,62,700/-which the petitioner-tenant was directed to pay on 16.04.2024. On 16.04.2024, instead of tendering the rent, an application was moved by the petitioner-tenant for the grant of one month time to deposit the rent. The said request was turned down and while relying upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in 'Rajan @ Raj Kumar Vs. Rakes