JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Jain, J.

Present revision petition is directed against order dated 16.03.2022 passed by Appellate Authority, Gurugram whereby the appeal preferred by the tenant-petitioner stands dismissed affirming the order passed by the Rent Controller assessing provisional rent alongwith interest and the cost.

2. Respondent-landlord filed eviction petition invoking Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 1973 Act) on the ground of non-payment of rent. The eviction petition was resisted by the respondent. Rent Controller assessed provisional rent vide order dated 25.02.2022 holding the tenant-petitioner to be in arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.9826819/- till 15.01.2020 and also assessed further rent from the month of February 2020 till February 2022 i.e. the date of first hearing.

3. The aforesaid order passed by the Rent Controller was challenged by the tenant before the Appellate Authority. Appellate Authority vide order dated 16.03.2022 upheld the order passed by the Rent Controller.

4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner-tenant submits that the order passed by the Rent Controller was affirmed by the Appellate Authority as per se perverse. He submits that the Rent Controller passed order relying upon the statement of accounts, alleged to have been submitted by the tenant to the landlord alongwith e-mail communications wherein total outstanding dues till 15.01.2020 were mentioned as Rs.9826819/-. He submits that once in the eviction petition, the landlord has specifically stated that the tenant has paid the rent upto December 2018 and is in arrears thereafter, the Rent Controller could not have assessed amount which is in excess of arrears of rent payable for period commencing from January 2019. He further refers to the account statement of the landlord to submit that if the said account statement is gone into, it would show that the even in April 2019, the rent was credited to the account of the tenant.

5. Per contra, Mr. Jain appearing for the landlord-respondent would submit that it is a case of a provisional assessment even if an excess amount is paid, tenant is bound to get set off qua that and this Court need not entertain the present revision petition.

6. I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case.

7. So far as the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is concerned, the scope has been spelled out by Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. vs. Dilbahar Singh 2014(9) SCC 102 holding as under:-

'9. The scope of revisional jurisdiction under various Rent Control Acts has fallen for consideration in many cases before this Court. One of the earlier decisions in the long line of such cases is Moti Ram3. The 3-Judge Bench of this Court in Moti Ram3 had an occasion to consider the extent of revisional power of the High Court under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (3 of 1949) which reads: ... The High Court may, at any time, on the application of any aggrieved party or on its own motion, call for and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under this Act for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such order or proceedings and may pass such order in relation thereto as it may deem fit.' Having regard to this provision, the Court noted the revisional power of the High Court in the following words:

8. The question that arises before this Court is:-

(i) Whether there is a perversity on the face of the order that can persuade this Court to exercise the revisional jurisdiction or not?

9. The assessment of provisional rent was introduced by Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan vs. Jagdamba Industries Corporation, 2002 AIR (Supreme Court) 2004 by supplying casus omisus to the provisions of Section 13(2)(i) of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, a provision 'para materia' to Section 13(2)(a) of 1973 A