JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.: - This order shall dispose of two revision petitions bearing CR-7096-2011 [for short “first petition”] and CR-7842-2011 [for short “second petition”] both titled as `Dharam Vir Vs. Raj Kumar Book Binder’. 2. In the first petition, the petitioner has challenged orders dated 02.11.2011 (Annexure P-4) and dated 04.11.2011 (Annexure P-6) both passed by the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar, whereas in the second petition, order dated 05.12.2011 (Annexure P-6) has been challenged which has been passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Jalandhar. 3. Petitioner Dharam Vir is the landlord who is owner of the house in which one room is in possession of Raj Kumar as a tenant. The landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short “the Act”] on 19.12.2008 to which written statement was filed on 12.03.2010 and replication was filed on 28.04.2010. The learned Rent Controller assessed the provisional rent on 05.10.2011 for the period w.e.f. 08.10.1997 to 07.01.2009 @ Rs.525/- per month, amounting to Rs.70,875/-, interest of Rs.24,097.50/- and costs of Rs.500/-, total amounting to Rs.95,472.50/-. The tenant was directed to make the payment of arrears of rent as provisionally assessed on or before 02.11.2011. On the adjourned date, i.e. 02.11.2011 which was the first date of hearing, the following order was passed by the learned Rent Controller: “Today the petition was fixed for payment of rent and petitioner evidence. But the rent has not been paid and counsel for respondent filed an application that respondent has filed an appeal against the order dated 05.10.2011 and the same is fixed for 03.11.2011. In view of the application moved by the counsel for respondent, the petition is adjourned to 04.11.2011 for payment and further proceedings.” 4. On 04.11.2011, the landlord moved an application for seeking eviction of the tenant for not complying with the order dated 05.10.2011 by which provisional rent was assessed. It was averred therein that the learned Appellate Authority, before whom the appeal is allegedly filed by the tenant against the order dated 05.10.2011, has not stayed the proceedings before the Rent Controller and while admitting the appeal, the case was simply adjourned for 09.11.2011 for arguments. It was averred therein that the learned Appellate Authority, before whom the appeal is allegedly filed by the tenant against the order dated 05.10.2011, has not stayed the proceedings before the Rent Controller and while admitting the appeal, the case was simply adjourned for 09.11.2011 for arguments. The said application was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller on 04.11.2011 vide its impugned order Annexure P-6 in which he had observed that the Rent Controller, of course, has no jurisdiction to extend the time without there being any reason but since the tenant has filed an application on 02.11.2011, i.e. on the date of first hearing after the assessment of provisional rent, that he had filed an appeal against the order dated 05.10.2011, therefore, that was a sufficient reason for the Rent Controller to have extended time for payment of provisionally assessed rent to 04.11.2011. 5. Aggrieved against the order dated 02.11.2011 (Annexure P-4) by which the learned Rent Controller has extended the time to 04.11.2011 for payment and further proceedings and order dated 04.11.2011 (Annexure P-6) by which the application of the landlord for passing an order of eviction on account of non-payment of provisionally assessed rent has been dismissed, the present first revision was filed in this Court in which notice of motion was issued on 18.11.2011. After the completion of service, vide order dated 23.11.2011, this Court had directed the learned Appellate Authority, before whom the appeal was filed by the tenant against the order dated 05.10.2011, to dispose of the same. The first revision petition was thereafter adjourned and in the meantime, the learned Appellate Authority, Jalandhar, vide its order dated 15.12.2011, allowed the appeal filed by the tenant and reduced the amount of rent to be tendered from Rs.95,472.50/- to Rs.47,986.25/- observing that the rent was to be calculated @ Rs.262.50/- per month which comes to Rs.35,437.50/- on which the interest component was Rs.12,048.75/- and after adding the costs of Rs.500/-, the amount to be paid by the tenant as provisionally assessed rent would come to Rs.47,986.25/-. Learned counsel for the landlord has submitted that the calculation made by the learned Appellate Authority is erroneous. 6. Learned counsel for the landlord has submitted that the calculation made by the learned Appellate Authority is erroneous. 6. Learned counsel for the landlord has raised a significant question in this case that “whether the tenant is liable to be evicted for non-payment of provisionally assessed rent even if he has challenged the said order by way of appeal in which stay is not granted?” 7. This issue is no more res integra after the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajan alias Raj Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar, [2012(1) Law Herald (P&H) 544] : 2010(2) PLR 201 in which it has been held that the first date of hearing means the first date of hearing after determination of provisional rent and other expenses by the Rent Controller and if the tenant fails to deposit the provisionally assessed rent, then nothing remains to be done and an order of ejectment of the tenant has to be passed. It is also held that if the tenant is dissatisfied with the interim order passed by the Rent Controller, he can challenge it before the date fixed for payment, in the higher forum. However, the issue is as to “whether simple challenge to the order of the Rent Controller before the higher forum, may be by way of appeal or revision, would be sufficient or proceedings or operation of the impugned order by which the assessment of provisional rent has been made by the Rent Controller, is required to be stayed?” 8. In my view, the tenant can escape from eviction in case of non-payment of provisionally assessed rent on the first date of hearing if he succeeds in obtaining an order of stay either of the impugned order or proceedings before the Rent Controller because mere filing of an appeal or revision would not be considered to be an order to stall the proceedings before the Rent Controller. I do not agree with the observation of the Rent Controller in his order (Annexure P-6 in the first petition) dated 04.11.2011 wherein he has observed that the pendency of appeal filed by the tenant was reasonable ground for extension of time. I do not agree with the observation of the Rent Controller in his order (Annexure P-6 in the first petition) dated 04.11.2011 wherein he has observed that the pendency of appeal filed by the tenant was reasonable ground for extension of time. The tenant should have applied for stay before the learned Appellate Authority but in case of stay having been declined or the appeal having been adjourned beyond the date on which the tenant is required to pay the provisionally assessed rent, the learned Rent Controller has no jurisdiction at all to further extend the time as has been done vide order dated 02.11.2011 (Annexure P-4) in the first petition. This could be viewed from this angle also that after the eviction order is passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, the revision is filed in this Court in which no stay is granted or stay is declined, in that event, the tenant cannot remain in possession on the ground that his appeal or revision is pending and order of eviction cannot be executed against him. 9. In view of the above discussion, the first petition is hereby allowed. The order dated 04.11.2011 (Annexure P-6) is hereby set aside and the application of the landlord for ordering eviction of the tenant is hereby allowed. Consequently, the second revision petition filed by the landlord has become infructuous and is dismissed accordingly. 10. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another connected case. -----------------