JUDGMENT Mr. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral):- The present revision petition has been filed by the landlords. They had instituted an eviction petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973. 2. In the eviction petition, it was pleaded that agreed rate of rent was Rs.2,000/- p.m.. Furthermore, the eviction was sought on the ground that the tenant had failed to pay the rent for a period of 22 months, commencing from 1.1.2002 to 31.10.2003. In the eviction petition filed, the Rent Controller assessed the rent provisionally and came to conclusion that the tenant was liable to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.2,000/- p.m.. 3. Counsel appearing for the tenant-respondent states that the tenant had tendered the rent at the rate of Rs.500/- p.m. and the same was refused by the landlords. The Rent Controller on non deposit of the provisional rent, ordered eviction of the tenant-respondent. 4. The order of eviction was assailed by the tenant-respondent. The tenant-respondent pleaded that in earlier litigation between the parties, it was concluded that the rate of rent was Rs.500/- p.m. The Appellate Authority held an enquiry and determined the rent to be Rs.500/- p.m. and afforded an opportunity to the tenant-respondent to tender the arrears of rent. It is stated that this order has been complied with by the tenant-respondent. 5. Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Rakesh Wadhawan v. M/s.Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, 2002(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 514, as interpreted by a Division Bench of this Court in Rajan alias Raj Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar, 2010(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 386 to state that once the tenant-respondent had not complied with the order whereby provisionally the rent was assessed, ipso facto his eviction ought to have been ordered. There is no quarrel with the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners but where the Appellate Authority went ahead to hold an enquiry in the appeal that on the basis of previous litigation, the rent was assessed at the rate of Rs.500/- p.m. and that rent had been paid by the tenant, until the findings of the Appellate Authority regarding assessing the rent are assailed, the eviction of the tenant-respondent on the basis of earlier litigation regarding non payment of provisional rent cannot be ordered. The water has flown too ahead. The water has flown too ahead. Therefore, the enquiry held by the Appellate Authority shall be deemed to have been held against the order of Rent Controller provisionally assessing the rent. Hence, it stood modified and once an opportunity had been afforded to the tenant-respondent to deposit the rent and the same had been complied with, the argument projected by counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. Therefore, this Court cannot come to the rescue of the petitioners. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed. ———————