Judgment H.S.Bhalla, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 10.8.1992 passed by the lower appellate authority, Ambala. 2. Facts required to be noticed for the disposal of this petition are that the landlords moved an ejectment petition against Krishan Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) under Section 13 of the Haryana Act No. 11 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `the Haryana Act). The petition filed by the landlords was dismissed vide judgment dated 14.5.1991 passed by the Rent Controller, Ambala City. The landlords knocked the door of the lower appellate authority by filing an appeal against the order passed by the Rent Controller. The learned lower appellate authority accepted the appeal and the order of the Rent Controller was set aside and the present petitioner-tenant was ordered to be ejected from the premises in question. Aggrieved against that order of ejectment passed against the petitioner-tenant, he has come up in revision petition before this court. 3. The other facts required to be noticed for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioner-tenant filed an application under Section 4 of the Act for the fixation of fair rent of the disputed premises. Vide order dated 23.2.1987, the then Rent Controller, Ambala City fixed the fair rent of the disputed premises at Rs. 167/- per month with effect from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 9.6.1983. The tenant went up in appeal and the learned appellate authority reduced the fair rent to Rs. 121/- per month with effect from the date of filing of the original petition. Ex.A-6 is the copy of the order dated 28.1.1988 passed by the lower appellate authority. In a previous petition for ejectment, landlords had applied for ejectment on the plea that the petitioner-tenant had not paid rent for the period from 9.6.1983 to 6.9.1986. In that petition, the petitioner-tenant tendered the rent at the rate of Rs. 80/- per month. 4. In the instant petition, the respondent-landlords have sought ejectment of the petitioner-tenant on the ground that he had not paid balance amount of rent for the period from 9.6.1983 to 6.9.1986 and had not paid rent at the rate of Rs. 167/- per month for the period from 7.6.1986 to 7.3.1987. The petitioner-tenant tendered the rent for the period from 7.9.1986 to 7.3.1987 at the rate of Rs. 80/- per month on 23.4.1987. 167/- per month for the period from 7.6.1986 to 7.3.1987. The petitioner-tenant tendered the rent for the period from 7.9.1986 to 7.3.1987 at the rate of Rs. 80/- per month on 23.4.1987. No tender of balance amount was made in respect of period from 9.6.1983 to 6.9.1986. The plea of the petitioner-tenant was that the fair rent had been illegally fixed by the learned Rent Controller at Rs. 167/- per month. The petitioner-tenant also denied the liability to pay house tax. 5. The Rent Controller, on conflicting pleadings of parties, framed only one issue with regard to the fact that "whether the petitioner-tenant is liable to be ejected on the grounds of short and invalid tender". As already discussed above, this issue was decided by the Rent Controller in favour of the tenant- petitioner, but the findings recorded thereon were reversed by the lower appellate authority. 6. Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") contains the grounds on which a tenant can be evicted at the instance of the landlord. Section 13(2)(i) reads : "(i) that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due from him in respect of the building or rented land within fifteen days after the expiry of the fixed in the agreement of tenancy with his landlord or in the absence of any such agreement by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable. Provided that if the tenant, within a period of fifteen day of the first hearing of the application for ejectment after due service, pays or tenders the arrears of rent and interest, to be calculated by the Controller, at eight per centum per annum on such arrears together with such costs of the application, if any, as may be allowed by the Controller, the tenant shall be deemed to have duly paid or tendered the rent within the time aforesaid; Provided further that the landlord shall not be entitled to claim arrears of rent for a period exceeding three years immediately preceding the date of application under the provisions of this Act." 7. Section 4 of the Act deals with the determination of fair rent. Section 4 of the Act deals with the determination of fair rent. Section 4(1) reads: "The Controller shall, on application by the tenant or the landlord of a building or rented land, fix the fair rent for such building or rented land after holding such enquiry as he may think fit, such fair rent shall be operative from the date of application." 8. It is crystal clear that under Section 13(2)(i) of the Act, the tenant has been made liable to be ejected on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent and under second proviso thereto the term "arrear of rent" has been restricted to a period of three years immediately preceding the date of application for ejectment. It is true that it is settled law that excess payment made by a tenant can be adjusted against the arrears due, but in the instant case the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any excess payment on his behalf. I find that the period for which arrears have been claimed is from 9.6.1983 to 6.9.1986 and 7.9.1986 to 7.3.1987. In respect of the former period, the claim is restricted to an amount of Rs. 87/- per month, i.e., balance amount of Rs. 167/- per month, which had been fixed as the fair rent by the learned Rent Controller. As regards the latter period, the amount sought to be recovered is at the rate of Rs. 167/- per month. The learned appellate authority had fixed fair rent of the disputed premises as Rs. 121/- per month and the parties have not been able to show that this order of the learned appellate authority Ex. A-6 has been set aside at any stage by any superior court. Calculated at that rate, the total entitlement of the respondents shall be Rs. 5,445/- i.e., rent at the rate of Rs. 121/- per month for 45 months. As per calculations made by the learned Rent Controller, the tenant petitioner had already made a sum of Rs. 5243/-. That amount is inclusive of the amount paid by the tenant as house tax. No finding has been recorded by the competent court about the liability of the tenant to pay the house tax. 121/- per month for 45 months. As per calculations made by the learned Rent Controller, the tenant petitioner had already made a sum of Rs. 5243/-. That amount is inclusive of the amount paid by the tenant as house tax. No finding has been recorded by the competent court about the liability of the tenant to pay the house tax. In such like circumstances, the amount so tendered by the tenant falls short of the amount payable as arrears of rent till the time upto which arrears had been sought by the respondents. 9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under Section 4(1) of the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller becomes operative from the date of the application. In the instant case, the learned lower appellate authority has manifestly acted illegally, arbitrarily without any jurisdiction while setting aside the order of the learned Rent Controller. I find that while deciding issue No. 1, the Rent Controller rightly concluded that on the basis of the detailed reason set out in its judgment that the tenant petitioner had on 23.4.1987 tendered a sum of Rs. 887/- in excess and that being so, the tender made by the petitioner of arrears of rent etc. was either short nor invalid. The landlord could not claim in the ejectment petition arrears of rent for a period exceeding three years in view of the mandatory provisions of Section 13(2)(i) the Act, which has already been reproduced above. It is settled law that a tenant is not liable to pay arrears of rent exceeding fair rent with retrospective effect covering a period of more than three years. The tenant is liable to pay only if his ejectment is sought on the ground of non-payment of rent under Section 13(2)(i) of the Act. The learned lower appellate authority fell in error that bar of limitation, as provided in the Second proviso to Section 13(2)(i) of the Act, does not apply to the facts of the present case. To my mind, the appellate authority totally ignored the mandatory provision of the Second proviso to Section 13(2)(i) of the Act as reproduced above. 10. The record clearly spells out that operation of Ex. A-5 was stayed by the lower appellate authority and in these circumstances, the tenant was not liable to pay Rs. 167/- and he was liable to pay only Rs. 10. The record clearly spells out that operation of Ex. A-5 was stayed by the lower appellate authority and in these circumstances, the tenant was not liable to pay Rs. 167/- and he was liable to pay only Rs. 80/- per month, whereas the rent was fixed by the lower appellate court at Rs. 121/- per month vide Ex. A-6 and as per that order, fair rent should be for the period from 9.6.1983 to 6.9.1986 (total 39 months) at the rate of Rs. 80/- per month, which the tenant has already paid. The total amount due from the tenant- petitioner comes to Rs. 5,445/- and as on 18.8.1984, the tenant paid an amount of Rs. 2,525/- from 17.6.1984 to 6.9.1986 an amount of Rs. 2,160/- was paid on 4.11.1986 and from 7.9.1986 to 7.3.1987, an amount of Rs. 560/- was paid on 23.4.1987 and thus, total amount comes to Rs. 5243/- (Rs. 2523/- + Rs. 2160/-+ Rs. 560/-). Meaning thereby that, tenant has paid Rs. 5243/- and the amount due from him was Rs. 5445/-. Since the landlord-respondents have claimed the rent of 45 months, whereas as per law, they could claim maximum rent of three years and in this manner, they have exceeded the period of nine months and in case the rent of nine months is deducted, the tenant has already paid excess amount to the tune of Rs. 887/- and therefore, in such like circumstances, the Rent Controller rightly concluded that the tender is not short. In this manner, the tenant-petitioner is not liable to be ejected on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent if he tenders rent on the first date of hearing for a period of three years immediately proceeding the date of application for ejectment. The Rent Controller, therefore, rightly concluded that the tenant- petitioner was not liable to be ejected from the demised premises on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent. In the light of what has been discussed above, revision petition filed by the petitioner-tenant succeeds and is allowed. The judgment dated 10.8.1992 passed by the lower appellate authority, whereby tenant was granted two months time to vacate the premises in question, is set aside and that of the Rent Controller dated 14.5.1991, whereby petition for ejectment filed by the landlord-respondents was dismissed, is restored.