JUDGMENT RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The tenant is in revision against the orders of the Courts below by which he has been ordered to vacate the demised premises on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent. The landlord filed petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short ‘the Act’) against the tenant/petitioner in respect of their industrial shed at 14/5 Mathura Road, Faridabad (for short ‘demised premises’) which was initially let out on 1.6.1983 and is presently on rent @ 20,400/- per month excluding water charges, electricity charges and house tax. The eviction was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent without sufficient cause w.e.f. of 1.6.2002 to 31.3.2003 @ 2,04,000/- excluding water and electricity charges to each landlord, total amounting to 6,12,000/. In reply, the relationship of landlord and tenant was not denied but it was claimed that the tenant has also spent a sum of 1,06,719.11 Paisa upto the month of February, 2003 in installation of a tubewell, construction of service road connecting the factory to the main road and for repair and paint of all the three sheds. The tenant had claimed that the Rent Controller may determine the rent after setting off the amount of `1,06,719.11 paisa together with interest accrued thereon after which the said amount shall be paid. On the pleading of the parties, issues were framed. Both the parties led their respective evidence in support of their case. The Rent Controller discussed all the three issues together and observed that the tenant had refused to tender the rent without any reasons because there was no condition in the lease deed that if any amount is spent by the tenant on the demised premises then it would be adjusted in the rent. It was observed that if any such amount was spent then it could have been recovered by the landlord by filing civil suit for recovery or adopting any other legal course. It was also observed that since the rent was not tendered within 15 days of the date of appearance and rather there was a refusal to tender, no further opportunity could have been granted. In this view of the matter, the learned Rent Controller vide its order dated 10.12.2009 passed the order of eviction. It was also observed that since the rent was not tendered within 15 days of the date of appearance and rather there was a refusal to tender, no further opportunity could have been granted. In this view of the matter, the learned Rent Controller vide its order dated 10.12.2009 passed the order of eviction. The appeal filed by the tenant was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide its order dated 8.9.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Courts below have not taken into consideration the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of “Rakesh Wadhawan Vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation” 2002(1) RCR (Rent) 514 in its true perspective. It is contended that it was incumbent upon the Rent Controller to offer an opportunity to the tenant to deposit the rent even if the same was not provisionally assessed. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of “Vinod Kumar Vs. Prem Lata” 2003(2) RCR (Rent) 329 in which three Judges Bench had reiterated the view taken by two Judges Bench in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan (Supra) that in case of eviction on the grounds of arrears of rent, the Rent Controller is to assess interim rent, interest and cost to be deposited by the tenant on the first date of hearing to be followed by final rent, if any fixed, after holding an enquiry. In this case, the Supreme Court had the occasion to make a comparative study of Section 13 (2)(i) of the Act and Section 13(2)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short ‘Punjab Act’) and had observed that except for the difference in the manner of constructing the sentence there is no substantial difference in effect between two provisions and the crux of the issue emerging for the decision of the relevant provision of the two Acts remains the same. He has also argued that since the provisional rent was not assessed by the Rent Controller, therefore, the tenant cannot be penalized and should have been offered an opportunity to tender the rent even when he asked for it on 7.8.2007. As against this, learned counsel for the landlord has submitted that the tenant had put in appearance on 31.3.2003 and made a request for grant of statutory period for tendering the rent. As against this, learned counsel for the landlord has submitted that the tenant had put in appearance on 31.3.2003 and made a request for grant of statutory period for tendering the rent. Hence, the case was adjourned to 11.4.2003 for the said purpose. On 11.4.2003, before the Rent Controller could have assessed the provisional rent in terms of first proviso to Section 13 (2)(i) of the Act, Sameer Bhadra, Secretary and Manager Legal of the respondent/Company made a statement that “the respondent does not want to tender the arrears of rent and wanted to contest the eviction petition hence, time be given for filing written statement”. After recording the said statement, the Rent Controller passed the following zimini order: “Respondent did not want to tender the rent and want to contest the case. The case is adjourned to 28.4.2003 for filing the written statement”. It is submitted that since the tenant had flatly refused to tender the arrears of rent, there was no occasion for the Rent Controller to assess the provisional rent and now after the eviction order has been passed, the tenant cannot claim an opportunity to tender the rent in terms of the decision in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan (Supra). I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. In this case, the relationship of the landlord, rate of rent and the period of arrears of rent is admitted. The tenant has claimed a ‘set off’ of an amount in the arrears of rent at the time of its tender. The tenant had appeared in Court on 31.3.2003. As per Section 13(2)(i) of the Act, the tenant is liable to be evicted if he does not pay or tender the rent due in respect of the tenanted premises within 15 days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy or in the absence of any such agreement by the last date of the month but the first proviso to this Section says that “if the tenant on the first hearing of the application for ejectment after due service, pays or tenders the arrears of rent and interest at six percent per annum on such arrears together with the cost of application assessed by the Controller, the tenant shall be deemed to have duly paid or tendered the rent within the time aforesaid”. On 8.3.2003, the case was adjourned to 11.4.2003, on the request of the tenant, who had prayed for requisite statutory period for the purpose of tendering the rent. The period of 15 days had started from 31.3.2003 and was in operation upto 15.4.2003. The case was adjourned to 11.4.2003 for tendering of rent but on that day the tenant refused to tender the rent and prayed for time to file written statement to contest the petition for eviction. Consequently, the case was adjourned to 28.4.2003. The question thus arises “whether the Rent Controller is obliged to assess the exact amount of arrears of rent by calculating the interest and cost in terms of first proviso to Section 13(2)(i) of the Act or he is not obliged to assess the provisional rent in case where the tenant makes a specific statement refusing to tender the rent?” The object of the legislature behind enacting Section 13 (2)(i) proviso is to save the tenant from eviction because of short tender that is why a duty has been cast upon the Rent Controller to assess the arrears of rent, interest and cost which is to be paid by the tenant to the landlord as arrears of rent. Generally, the dispute is with regard to rate of rent or the period of rent between the landlord and tenant otherwise the rate of interest is already provided under the Act as well as under the Punjab Act as 8% and 6%, respectively and cost of the petition is assessed by the Rent Controller as per his discretion. In Rakesh Wadhawan (Supra), it was held by the Supreme Court that after the payment of provisional rent by the tenant, the Rent Controller then finally adjudicate the arrears of rent which if found to be more than the provisional rent and the tenant is to be given an opportunity to make up the deficiency to avoid the order of eviction. This Court in order to save the tenants from eviction, on the issue of short tender, had ordered in CR No.8076 of 2010 titled as “Gurpreet Singh and another Vs. Brijinder Bhardwaj and another” decided on 04.03.2011, that the Rent Controller should assess exact amount of provisional rent which is to be tendered by the tenant. However, in the case of “Hukma Devi and others Vs. Brijinder Bhardwaj and another” decided on 04.03.2011, that the Rent Controller should assess exact amount of provisional rent which is to be tendered by the tenant. However, in the case of “Hukma Devi and others Vs. Bhagwan Dass” 2003(2) PLR 371, this Court has held that once the tenant denies his relationship with the landlord then the Rent Controller is not obliged to pass an interim order of assessment of provisional rent because if the tenant is permitted to take this stand at the first instance and later on allowed to change that he is the tenant of the landlord then he would be successful in delaying the payment of rent. In the said case itself, it has been held that “but in a case where the tenant refused the liability to pay the rent, the question of assessment would not at all arise?” In the present case, the tenant has categorically refused to tender the rent. Hence, there was no obligation on the part of the Rent Controller to assess the provisional rent even if the tenant had made a prayer, after three years of the said statement i.e. 31.7.2007, because that would be after the expiry of statutory period of 15 days. There is another question in this revision as to “whether the Rent Controller is obliged to assess the provisional rent while taking into consideration the amount claimed by the tenant as ‘set off’?” In this regard, it is observed that the tenant has claimed an amount of 1,06,719.11 Paisa on account of installation of tubewell, construction of service road connecting the factory to the main road and for repair and paint of the demised premises which is a pure question of fact and cannot be gone into at this stage of summary assessment of the provisional rent in which there could be a dispute either a rate of rent or period of rent. Thus, in my view, the tenant cannot claim ‘set off’ at the stage of assessment of provisional rent as it requires detailed enquiry and cannot be decided in the summary assessment of provisional rent. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and hence, the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.