JUDGMENT Mr. Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral) - This order shall dispose of aforesaid three revision petitions raising common question of law and facts i.e. whether the petitioner herein can be ordered to be evicted for non-payment of arrears of rent. 2. In the first petition, the respondents-landlords claimed rent for the month of January, 1988; in the second petition, the respondents claimed rent from the month of January to March, 1988; and in the third ejectment petition, rent from the month of July, 1988 to 28.02.1989 was claimed. In the first two petitions, an additional ground of ejectment of material impairment of the value and utility of the premises was also taken. 3. The stand of the present petitioner-tenant was that rent was deposited in the bank account of the landlords and that it is not in arrears of rent. Both the Courts have ordered the eviction of the tenant on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent while declining the ground of eviction of material impairment in value and utility of the premises. Still aggrieved, the tenant is in the revision petitions. 4. The short argument raised on behalf of the petitioner-tenant is that the provisions of Section 13(2) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act’) have been examined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported as Rakesh Wadhawan Vs. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation AIR 2002 SC 2004 , wherein the words ‘assessed by the Controller’ appearing in the proviso to Section 13(2)(i) have been read to mean assessment of the (i) ‘arrears of rent’; (ii) ‘the interest on such arrears’, and (iii) ‘the cost of application’ by the Rent Controller. The Controller has been then directed to 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 passing of such order of assessment. It was held that such method only satisfies the requirement of the proviso to Section 13(2)(i) of the Act. The relevant extract from the judgment reads as under: “30. To sum up, our conclusions are: 1. It was held that such method only satisfies the requirement of the proviso to Section 13(2)(i) of the Act. The relevant extract from the judgment reads as under: “30. To sum up, our conclusions are: 1. In Section 13(2)(i) proviso, the words “assessed by the Controller” qualify not merely the words “the cost of application” but the entire preceding part of the sentence i.e. “the arrears of rent and interest at six per cent per annum on such arrears together with the cost of application”. 2. The proviso to Section 13(2)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 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. 3. Of necessity, “the date of first hearing of the application” would mean the date falling after the date of such order by the Controller. xxx xxx” 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that in view of Rakesh Wadhawan’s case (supra), both the orders of ejectment on the ground of non-payment of the arrears of rent are clearly not sustainable. The orders passed by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the Appellate Authority show that no such provisional assessment of rent was made so as to satisfy the requirement of proviso to Section 13(2)(i) of the Act. Mr. Kataria, learned counsel for the respondents, could not dispute the proposition laid down in the aforesaid judgment in view of the fact that provisional assessment of rent was not made, it render the orders passed as unsustainable. Therefore, both the orders ordering ejectment on the question of arrears of rent are not sustainable and are liable to be set aside. 6. In view of the above, the orders of eviction on the ground of arrears of rent are, thus, set aside. Consequently, while allowing the present petitions, the matter is remitted to the Rent Controller to assess the arrears of rent, interest on such arrears and cost of application, if any, so as to satisfy the requirement of proviso to Section 13(2)(i) of the Act. Consequently, while allowing the present petitions, the matter is remitted to the Rent Controller to assess the arrears of rent, interest on such arrears and cost of application, if any, so as to satisfy the requirement of proviso to Section 13(2)(i) of the Act. 7. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 11.08.2014 for further proceedings in accordance with law. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————