JUDGMENT :

Vikas Suri, J.

The present revision petition has been filed impugning the order dated 18.05.2023 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Panchkula, whereby appeal preferred against the order dated 10.04.2023 passed by the Rent Controller, Panchkula, ordering eviction of the tenants and sub-tenants and put the petitioner in vacant possession of the demised premises, has been dismissed.

2. The facts of the case are that respondent No.1-landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'Rent Act'), for eviction of tenant and sub-tenants on the grounds of non-payment of rent, sub-letting and personal necessity from the demised premises, i.e. commercial booth No.54, Sector-7, Panchkula. It was averred that the demised premises was let out to respondent No.2 vide rent agreement dated 30.12.2020 for a period of 11 months w.e.f. 01.01.2021 to 30.11.2021 at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- per month payable in advance. It was further agreed that the rent shall be enhanced at the rate of 10%, if tenancy continues beyond the expiry of the rent agreement. Petitioners opposed the said petition and submitted that they had purchased the business from Smt. Pooja Mittal, Proprietor of M/s Shankar Chaat, in the month of June, 2021 and they had become direct tenants in the premises on oral agreement at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per month. It was denied that the petitioners came into possession of the demised premises through the tenant-respondent No.2. Vide order dated 23.03.2023, the provisional rent was assessed by the Rent Controller. Challenging the said order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioners, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 11.04.2023 as meanwhile, on account of non-payment of provisional rent, eviction order dated 10.04.2023 had been passed. Aggrieved by the eviction order dated 10.04.2023, an appeal was preferred, which was dismissed vide order dated 18.05.2023.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the provisional rent assessed vide order dated 23.03.2023 (Annexure P-4) was to be paid by respondent No.2-tenant and the plea set up by them is that they were direct tenants in the demised premises at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per month under oral agreement with the landlord. It is further submitted that the petitioners are ready to pay the rent amount, which is due towards the landlord.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the record.

5. In the present case, though a stand was taken by the sub-tenant/petitioners that they were not mere sub-lettee in the demised premises but were direct tenants under an oral agreement at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per month, however, they failed to produce any rent receipt/material showing that the rent at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per month was ever paid/tendered by them to the landlord. The said aspect was taken into consideration while assessing the provisional rent vide order dated 23.03.2023. It is also admitted that the husband of tenant-respondent No.2, namely Atul Mittal, was a partner to the extent of 33% along with the petitioners, who claims to be direct tenant under the landlord. The Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan and others vs. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and others, (2002) 5 SCC 440 has held as thus:-

'30. To sum up, our conclusions are:

6. The ratio of Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra) was reiterated by a three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar vs. Prem Lata, (2003) 11 SCC 397.

7. The short question required to be addressed in the present revision is that whether sub-tenant would have independent right to defend his possession when the tenants have failed to tender the provisional rent assessed by the Rent Controller. The issue regarding the consequence of non-deposit of provisional rent was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Rajan @ Raj Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar, 2010 (1) RentLR 515, wherein following the view taken in Rakesh Wadhawan's cas