Judgment K.Kannan, J. 1. The landlords revision petition requires consideration of the issue of duty of the Rent Controller regarding provisional fixation of rent before undertaking an enquiry under Section 13(2)(i) on the ground of subletting. 2. The lower Appellate Authority affirmed the decision of the trial Court that the plea of subletting had not been established. The Appellate Court referred specifically to the fact that the landlord had not established that the tenant has lost his exclusive possession in any portion of the building and that there was no subletting. However, earlier, the Rent Controller, while upholding the claim of the landlord that there had been subletting, had merely stated that after a close scrutiny of evidence and record, he was inclined to accept the plea raised by the landlord that there had been subletting. Curiously the Rent Controller gave no reasoning for such a conclusion nor did he make any reference to any documentary evidence specifically in his order. The so-called close scrutiny alleged to have been undertaken by the Rent Controller was not accompanied by any concomitant references to any documentary evidence. The trial Courts findings on the question of fact did not accord with evidence but the Appellate Court adverted to correct legal approach and did not allow the landlord to obtain eviction on such finding. 3. As regards the contention of the landlord regarding non-payment of rent, it was the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the lease deed had specifically spelt out the rent for an initial period of three years commencing from 06.01.1988 as Rs. 2500/- with a rebate of Rs. 500/- if the amount was paid in advance before the 7th day of every calendar month. The lease deed also stipulated that after the expiry of the lease period, the lease shall be continued at the option of the party with a 15% increase in rent amounting to Rs. 2875/-. It similarly provided for a rebate of Rs. 575/- if the rent had been paid in advance by the 7th day of every calendar month. The contention of the landlord on the date of filing of the petition was that tenant had been paying only @ Rs. 2300/- even when the payment had not been made in advance and consequently the liability was for payment of Rs. 575/- if the rent had been paid in advance by the 7th day of every calendar month. The contention of the landlord on the date of filing of the petition was that tenant had been paying only @ Rs. 2300/- even when the payment had not been made in advance and consequently the liability was for payment of Rs. 2875/- and so calculated, the arrears of rent commencing from June 1992 upto the date of petition was Rs. 6900/-. The tenant paid Rs. 2500/- on the first date of hearing when he appeared on 28.02.1994. It was paid and received by the respective parties under protest. 4. The contention of the tenant is that between the period of institution of the proceedings in August 1993 upto the date when the case was posted for first hearing in February 1994, he had been regularly depsiting rent to the landlords account @ Rs. 2300/- and all these amounts were to be reckoned as payments only for past arrears if any and even if the landlords contentions were to be accepted that the rent was Rs. 2875/-, there had been excess payment in the hands of the landlord. This reasoning of the tenant is on the assumption that the monthly payments which tenant was making from the date of institution ought not to be taken as payment due for the respective months when they fell due but they could be taken as due and payable upto the date of institution of the rent control proceedings. The construction of the relevant provision made by the counsel for the tenant is clearly untenable. A rent which fell to be paid between August 1993 being the month of the institution of the rent control proceedings and February 1994, the month when the case had been set for first hearing ought to be appropriated only for the rents payable for the respective months and it could not be adjusted or treated as payment for earlier periods. If according to the landlord, the rent payable was Rs. 2875/- it had the basis in the written document of lease and there had been a shorfall in the payment of rent by paying rent @ Rs. 2300/- per month. The tenant ought to have been granted an opportunity to make payment by the Rent Controller while making a direction as regards the provisional rent payable by the tenant. 5. 2875/- it had the basis in the written document of lease and there had been a shorfall in the payment of rent by paying rent @ Rs. 2300/- per month. The tenant ought to have been granted an opportunity to make payment by the Rent Controller while making a direction as regards the provisional rent payable by the tenant. 5. The procedure to be adopted by the Rent Controller while applying the provisions of Section 13(2)(i) with the provisos under the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 have been dealt with by the Honble Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan & Ors. v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and Ors., 2002(1) RCR(Rent) 514 : 131(2002-2) PLR 370. While adverting to the said provision, the Honble Supreme Court said that the provision casts an obligation on the Controller to make an assessment of:(i) arrears of rent, (ii) the interest on such arrears, and (iii) the cost of application and then quantify by way of an interim or provisional order the amount which the tenant must pay or tender on the first date of hearing after the passing of such order of assessment by the Controller so as to satisfy the requirement of the proviso. The first date of hearing, the Honble Supreme court said would mean the date following the date of such assessment order by the Controller. If the amount deposited by the tenant is found to be deficient, the Honble Supreme Court said that the Controller may pass a conditional order directing the tenant to place the landlord in possession of the premises by giving a reasonable time to the tenant for paying or tendering the deposited amount, failing which alone he shall be liable to be evicted on this ground. This judgement clearly spells out the procedure which has not been followed by the learned Rent Controller. If the amount of Rs. 2500/- deposited was made under protest and the landlord was receiving the same under protest, there was a duty on the Rent Controller to make a provisional assessment of rent and afford an opportunity to tender the rent at the next hearing which in law would be the first date of hearing and if only the amount had not been paid, the consequence of eviction would have followed. This consequence could be incorporated in the order of assessment itself by imposing the payment as a condition and the effect of failure of such payment. Since the Rent Controller has not adopted the procedure, the ground canvassed by the landlord to order the eviction on this ground cannot be attracted. The landlords application was upheld in the Appellate Court on a different ground and the Courts below did not have the occasion to deal with this issue. 6. Under these circumstances, I set aside the finding of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority as regards the ground urged by the landlord for eviction on non-payment of rent alone and remand the matter to the Rent Controller for the sole consideration of the issue regarding non-payment of rent under Section 13(2)(i) of the Rent Control Act. The procedure prescribed by the Honble Supreme Court as adverted to in this judgment shall be followed and appropriate order shall be passed in terms of the above directions. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. Appearance of parties before Rent Controller on 17.02.2009.