O R D E R

These civil revision petitions have been filed against the order passed in R.C.A.No.28 of 2017 confirming the order passed by the trial Court in R.C.O.P.No.22 of 2014. The petitioner and the respondent herein will be referred as tenant and landlord in these petitions. The landlord is the owner of the property and rented out the premises to the tenant/Punjab National Bank since 13.11.2002, initially for a monthly rent of Rs.9,000/-. Thereafter, in the year 2007, the landlord filed R.C.O.P.No.22 of 2007 for fixation of fair rent, which was allowed by the rent controller vide its order dated 23.10.2013, fixing the fair rent at Rs.44,426/-. However, the tenant failed to pay the fair rent fixed to the landlord and since 17.12.2007, the total due was Rs.33,31,915/-. Therefore, the present R.C.O.P.No.22 of 2014 was filed by the landlord for eviction of the tenant from the premises.

2. The matter was contested by the tenant stating that the fixation of fair rent order was passed without hearing the tenant and that the counsel who had represented the tenant was not a counsel authorized by the tenant and that the ex-parte order cannot be sustained as the fair rent is fixed on the higher side and it is also submitted by the tenant that he has filed the necessary petition for setting aside the fixation of fair rent. On the side of the landlord, one witness was examined as P.W.1 and three documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P3. On the side of the tenant, one witness was examined as D.W.1 and Ex.D1 to D7 were marked. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the submissions advanced by either side and also on proper appreciation of the documentary evidence, held that the landlord had willfully failed to pay the fair rent and that the amount paid to the Income Tax Department on the basis of Ex.D5 without bringing the same to the notice of the landlord is nothing but an admitted fact on the part of the tenant to evict the payment of rent to the landlord and accordingly, allowed the petition filed by the landlord, directing the tenant to vacate the premises within a period of two months.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, the tenant preferred R.C.A.No.28 of 2017 and along with the said appeal, I.A.No.86 of 2017 was filed by the tenant to set aside the ex-parte order. The Rent Control Appellate Authority on hearing the tenant directed the tenant to deposit the fair rent due to the landlord within a particular time frame. While agreeing with the findings and reasonings recorded by the trial Court, the Rent Control Appellate Authority directed the tenant to pay the arrears of Rs.55,08,824/- due till April 2018 and to pay the rent for a period from May 2018 to August 2018 within the particular time. Since the said order was not complied with, both the I.A. and R.C.A were dismissed upholding the reasons recorded by the Rent Controller. Aggrieved by the said order, the present civil revision petitions have been filed.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the tenant submitted that the rent has been duly paid to the Income Tax Department on the basis of the notice Ex.D5 received and therefore, the findings that there is a default in payment of rent is fully unsustainable. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the tenant that the order was passed ex-parte without affording the opportunity of hearing to the tenant and the fixation of fair rent is also on the higher side. However, both the Rent Controller and Rent Control Appellate Authority have failed to appreciate the submission advanced on behalf of the tenant in proper perspective. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the tenant that the rent has been paid to the Income Tax Department for the due on behalf of the landlord, on the basis of the notice Ex.D5 served on the tenant by the Income Tax Department and therefore, the reasonings recorded by the trial Court as exhibited by the Appellate Court is not borne out by the materials available on record. It