Holding

A tenant who fails to comply with a rent controller’s provisional assessment cannot invoke the proviso of Section 13(2)(i) to avoid eviction, and the eviction order based on such non‑compliance remains valid and cannot be set aside merely because the provisional assessment is later found erroneous.

Summary

The landlord, Dalip Kaur Brar, leased a residential premises to the respondents for three years at a rent of Rs.25,000 per month, increasing to Rs.28,000 after the first year. The tenants fell into arrears from November 2005, but the Rent Controller made a provisional assessment directing them to deposit only Rs.19,000 per month from June 2005, which the tenants never paid. An eviction order was passed, the tenants appealed, obtained a conditional stay, failed to comply, and the High Court later set aside the eviction on the ground that the provisional assessment was erroneous. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was wrong: a tenant who does not comply with a provisional assessment cannot invoke the proviso of Section 13(2)(i) to avoid eviction, and the eviction order based on such non‑compliance remains valid. The Court restored the eviction order, ordered the tenants to pay costs, and clarified the interpretation of Section 13 and the right to challenge provisional assessments in an appeal under Section 15(1)(b).

Issues considered

The correctness of setting aside the eviction order on the basis of an alleged error in the provisional assessment.
Whether a tenant can ignore a provisional assessment and rely solely on the appeal provision under Section 15(1)(b) to defeat an eviction order.
The proper interpretation and scope of the proviso to Section 13(2)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act.
Whether a provisional assessment is interlocutory and may be challenged in an appeal against the final eviction order.
Whether failure to comply with the provisional assessment bars the tenant from enjoying the deeming fiction of the proviso.

Legislation cited

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949s. 13, s. 15
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881s. 138

Subjects

rent controlevictionprovisional assessmentSection 13Section 15deeming fictionlandlord-tenant disputecivil revisionissue estoppelres judicata

Judgment

[2017] 5 S.C.R. 444

A DALIP KAUR BRAR
v.
MIS.GURU GRANTH SAHIB SEWA MISSION
(REGO.) AND ANR.
B (Civil Appeal No. 5129of2017)
APRIL 11, 2017
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI AND
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 :
c
s.13 - Interpretation of - Held: The interpretation of
provisions of s.13 must bring about a just balance between the rights
of the tenant and those of the landlord - Where the tenant has
admitted that the rent is due and payable at least for a certain period,
the Court should adopt an interpretation which does not permit the
D
tenant to defeat the just claim of landlord - In the instant case, the
High Court in revision while determining whether the provisional
determination of the Rent Controller was correct or otherwise ignored
that the tenants did not deposit the rent even for the duration which
was admittedly due and payable - Further. while the rent payable
E was Rs.25,0001- for the first year and thereafter Rs.28.0001-, the
Rent Controller had directed the tenants to deposit only Rs.19,0001-,
howeve1; nothing was deposited by the tenants within the period
fixed by the Rent Controller - Every excuse was made by the tenants
for not paying the rent which was due and payable - High Court
wrongly allowed the revision by tenants - Order of eviction passed
F by the Rent Controller as confirmed by the appellate authority,
restored - Respondents to pay costs of R_s. 50,0001- to the appellant
- Rent Control and Eviction.
s. l 3(2)(i):
G Proviso - Deeming fiction - Benefit of - When available -
Held: When on an assessment being made by Rent Controlle1; the
tenant on the first hearing of eviction application pays or tenders
inter alia the arrears of rent, as assessed by the Controller. the tenant
is deemed to have duly paid or tendered the rent within the statutory
period prescribed in the substantive part of clause (i) of
H sub-section (2).
444
DALIP KAUR BRAR v. MIS.GURU GRANTH SAHIB SEWA 445
MISSION (REGD.) AND ANR.

Proviso - "'Provisional assessment" order by Rent Controller A
- Object and interpretation of - Held: The provisional assessment
made by the rent controller ensures that while the tenant is protected
against an unjust demand by the landlord, the landlord in turn is
not deprived of the just dues owing on account of use and occupation
of the property by the tenant - The provisional assessment is based B
on a prima facie view formed by the Controller on the basis of
pleadings or such other material, as available - To understand the
words "assessed by the Rent Controller" as "correctly assessed;',
would not be proper - Arrears payable by a tenant, would be
correctly assessed only after evidence is recorded and concluded.
s. l 5(l)(b) - Right of statutory (lfllJeal as against provisional C
assessment - Held: The determination of a provisional assessment
by Rent Controller is the foundation of eviction order, which flows
from non-compliance of the provisional assessment order - Thus,
· the tenant in an appeal against eviction order is entitled to question
the correctness a/provisional assessment order and the said right D
is not lost even after an eviction order is passed.
A lease agreement for three years was executed between the
appellant-landlord and respondents-tenants providing for a rent of
Rs.25,000/- for the first year which was to be enhanced to Rs. 28,000/-
forthe remaining two years. Eviction application was filed by the landlord E
before the Rent Controller under Section 13, East Punjab Urban Rent
Restriction Act, 1949, pleading that the tenants were in arrears of rent
from 1.11.2005. The Rent Controller erroneously made a provisional
assessment directing the tenant to deposit the rent from 1.06.2005 and
not from 1.11.2005, as claimed by the landlord and atthe rateufRs.19,000/
- and not Rs.25,000/- as per the lease agreement. The tenant failed to F
comply with the provisional assessment order, whereupon eviction order
was passed by the Rent Controller. Appeal filed by the tenants was
dismissed by the appellate authority. The High Court by the impugned
order. allowed the revision holding that since the order of provisional
assessment was flawed, hence, the consequential eviction order ought G
to be set aside. Hence, the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the East Punjab
Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949, contains a bar to the eviction
H
446 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R.

A of a tenant who is in possession of a building or rented land except
in accordance with the provisions of the Section or in pursuance
of an order passed under Section 13. The proviso to clause (i) of
sub-section (2) is in the nature of a concession by which the
legislature has introduced a deeming fiction. The deeming fiction
arises where the tenant at the first hearing of the application for
B
ejectment pays or tenders the arrears of rent together with
interest at six per cent per annum and the costs of the application
assessed by the Rent Controller. A tenant who does so would be
deemed to have duly paid or tendered the rent within the time
prescribed by the substantive provision of Section 13(2)(i).
c However, a tenant failing to comply with the terms of an order of
provisional assessment, cannot thereafter avail of the concession
extended to a tenant, through the proviso under Section 13(2)(i),
and will be liable to suffer an order of eviction. However, having
suffered the order of eviction, the tenant is entitled to the
statutory remedy of an appeal under Section 15(l)(b). The
D
determination of a provisional assessment being the foundation
of the order of eviction (which flows from the non-compliance of
the terms of the provisional assessment), the tenant in an appeal
against the order of eviction is entitled to question the
correctness of the order of provisional assessment. This is
E available even after an order of eviction has been passed. [Paras
18, 24) [455-E-F, G-H; 460-G-H; 461-A-B)
1.2 The provisional assessment is based on a prima facie
view formed by the Controller on the basis of the pleadings or
such other material as may be available. Arrears payable by a
F tenant, would be correctly assessed only after evidence is
recorded and concluded. The instant assessment is clearly
provisional. It is made, even before evidence has commenced to
be recorded. Therefore, it would be improper to understand and
extend to such assessment, any further meaning. Such amount
as determined by the Controller must be paid by the tenant on
G the first date of hearing after the date of the provisional order
passed by the Controller. The date of first hearing is the date on
which the Controller applies his mind to the facts involved in the
case. The provisional adjudication is subject to a subsequent final
adjudication by the Rent Controller. The deposit by the tenant
H in terms of the final order of assessment, within the period fixed
DALIP KAUR BRAR v. MIS.GURU GRANTH SAHIB SEWA 447
MISSION (REGO.) AND ANR.

by the Rent Controller would protect the tenant from the A
consequence of an order of ejectment. [Para 21) [458-C-E, H;
459-A)
2.1 One line of interpretation for construing the provisions
of Section 13, which has been suggested on behalf of the
respondents, is that the tenant would be at liberty to ignore the B
order of provisional assessment passed by the Rent Controller
and upon the passing of an order of eviction for non-compliance,
to pursue the remedy of an appeal under Section 15(1)(b).
According to this line of interpretation, in the appeal under
Section 15(l)(b) the tenant may demonstrate that the order of
provisional assessment was erroneous and as a consequence c
thereof, the order of eviction must fail. Accepting the line of
interpretation suggested by the respondents would· lead to a
situation where, though the rate of rent is not in dispute and the
tenant admits that rent is clue and payable for a certain duration
of time (while disputing the quantum of arrears) the landlord in D
pursuance of a determination made on a provisional basis by the
Rent Controller would be deprived of the rent due and payable,
while the tenant takes a chance of being able to demonstrate in
the course of an appeal against the order of eviction that the
initial determination for a certain part of the period was not
payable. Such an interpretation would defeat the object and E
purpose of Section 13. If the respondents intended to dispute
the claim of arrears for a specified period, there was no reason or
justification for them not to deposit the rent. [Paras 27, 28) [462-
D-F; 466-E-G] •
Rakesh Wadhawan and Ors. v. Jagdamba Industrial F
Corporation and Ors. (2002) 5 SCC 440 : [2002) 3
SCR 468 - relied on.
2.2 The interpretation of the provisions of Section 13 must
bring about a just balance between the rights of the tenant and
those of the landlord. On the one hand, there is a need for G
protecting the tenant against being subjected to a disproportionate
demand by the landlord and of suffering in consequence, an unjust
decree of eviction. On the other hand there is a need to protect
the landlord against the tactics which a recalcitrant tenant may
adopt by deploying every gambit in the rule book to defeat the H
448 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 5 S.C.R.

A just claims of the landlord to the payment of rent. However, in a
case where the tenant has admitted that the rent is due and payable
at least f°'r a certain period, it is necessary that the Court should
adopt an interpretation which does not permit the tenant to defeat
the just claim of the landlord. The present case is an object
example of such a situation. The lease agreement between the
B
parties provided for a rent of Rupees 25,000 for the first year of
the lease ending on 31 May 2006, and which was to stand
enhanced to Rupees 28,000 for the remaining two years. The
Rent Controller directed the tenant to deposit only an amount of
Rupees 19,000. However,· the tenant deposited nothing within
c the period fixed. [Paras 27,. 28] [462-F-H; 463-G-H; 464-A-B]
Vinod Kumar v. Premlata (2003) 11 SCC 397: [2003) 2
Suppl. SCR 803 - followed.
3. In the facts of the case, no manner of doubt is left that
there was a stubborn and steadfast unwillingness on the part of
D the tenant to comply with the order passed by the Rent Controller
even to the extent of non-deposit of rent for the period for which
it was admittedly due and payable. The High Court while
determining whether the provisional determination of the Rent
·Controller was correct or otherwise could not have ignored the
E position that while the rent payable was Rupees 25,000 per month
till 31 May 2006 and Rupees 28,000 per month from 1 June 2006,
the Rent Controller had directed a deposit only of Rupees 19,000
per month. The Respondents deposited nothing within the period
fixed and a deposit made in May 2008 would not enure to their
benefit. [Para 28) [466-C-D; 467-C-D]
F ' .
Narayan Dutt Tiwari v. Rohit Shekhar and Anr: (2012)
12 sec 554 - held inapplicable.
Harjit Singh Uppal v. Anup Bansal (2011) 11 SCC 672
: (2011) 15 SCR948 - distinguished.
.[
G Hope Plantations Ltd. v. Taluk Land Board, Peermade I
and Am: (1999) 5 SCC 590 : [1998) 2 Suppl. SCR 514
- referred to.
Case Law Reference
i
[1998) 2 Suppl. SCR 514 referred to Para 14 '
H i
"
"
DALIP KAUR BRAR v. MIS.GURU GRANTH SAHIB SEWA . · 449
MISSION (REGD.) AND ANR.

(2012) 12 sec 554 held inapplicable Para 16 A
[2002] 3 SCR 468 relied on Para 27
(2003] 2. Suppl. SCR 803 followed Para 27
(2011] 15 SCR 948 distinguished Para 28
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5129 8 /
/

of2017.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.04.2015/31.07.2015 of
the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision
No. 3208 of2009(0&M).
H. P. Raval, Sr. Adv.,Sudhir Walia, Ms. Niharika Ahluwa1,ia,
c
Abhishek Atrey, Advs. for the Appellant.
Sumeet Mahajan, Sr. Adv., Sharan Sethi, Rajesh Sharma, Ms.
Nidhi Singh Dubey, Amit K. (for Ms. Shalu Sharma), Advs. for the
Respondents.
D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. I. Leave granted.
2. The Rent Controller ordered that the tenant be evicted under
Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 1 for
defaulting in the payment of rent. The Punjab and Haryana High Court E
set aside the order of eviction. The correctness of the decision rendered
. by the learned Single Judge on 29 April 2015 has been called into question.
The appellant is the landlord. The Respondents are her tenants.
3. On l June 2005 a lease was executed by the appellant by
which a residential property, bearing House No. 2535 in Sector 35-C at F
Chandigarh, was let out to the respondents. The term of the lease was
three years commencing on 1 June 2005, to end on ·31.0ctober 2008.
The rent agreed was Rupees 25,000 for an initial period of one year
which was to be enhanced to Rupees 28,000 commencing from I June ·
2006 for the remainder of the term. G
4. On 8 November 2006, the appellant filed an ejectment
application under Section 13 of the Act on the ground that : (i) the
respondents failed to pay the rent from 1 November 2005 to 31 May
2006 at the agreed rate of Rupees 25,000 per month and with effect
1
the Act
H
450 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R.

A from 1June2006 atthe rate of Rupees 28,000 per month, and the cheques
which were issued were dishonoured; (ii) the premises have been kept
locked and were not being used for sufficient reason since December
2005.
5. The respondents contested the ground of default by claiming
B that they had paid an advance of six months' rent and hence no arrears
were due.
6. The Rent Controller by an order dated 14 November 2007
made a provisional assessment of rent and directed the respondents to
deposit an amount of Rupees 19,000 per month with effect from 1 June
c 2005 together with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum and costs
quantified at Rupees 500. The order of the Rent Controller fixed the
proceedings on 14 December 2007 for payment or tender of the rent as
provisionally assessed.
7. On 14 December 2007 the respondents filed an application for
D review on the ground that though the appellant had claimed rent with
effect from 1 November 2005 the direction for deposit was with effect
from 1June2005. The fact that the respondents were in arrears appears
not to have been in dispute for even in the application for review the
prayer was in the following terms :
E " ... It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the order dated
14.11.2007 may kindly be reviewed and set aside and the
Respondent, be allowed to tender the rent from 01.03.2007 to
14.11.2007, in the interest ofjustice."
The respondents failed to comply with the order of provisional
assessment.
F
8. Since the respondents failed to comply with the order by which
provisional rent was determined together with interest and costs, the
Rent Controller passed an order of eviction on 14 December 2007. The
respondents filed an appeal against the order. On 7 January 2008 a
G conditional stay was granted by the District and Sessions Judge,
Chandigarh, acting as the appellate authority, by which the order of eviction
was stayed subject to the deposit of rent within a period of one month
before the Rent Controller and the continued deposit of the monthly rent
by the seventh day of every succeeding month. The respondents failed
to comply with the conditions subject to which stay was granted. Instead,
H
DALIP KAUR BRAR v. MIS.GURU GRANTH SAHIB SEWA 451
MISSION (REGD.) AND ANR.[DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

they filed on 7 February 2008 an application for modifying the order A
dated 7 January 2008. On 11 February 2008, the respongents filed an
application for extension of time. The appellate court by its order dated
18 February 2008 dismissed the applications for modification and for
extension of time.
9. The first round of proceedings before the High Comi was then B
initiated by the respondents by instituting a civil revision application 2 in
which they sought to challenge the order of eviction dated 14 December
2007, the order granting conditional stay dated 7 January 2008 and the
order of the appellate court dated 18 February 2008 dismissing the
application for modification and extension of time. A learned Single
Judge of the High Court by an order dated 31 March 2008 dismissed the
c
civil revision.
10. The appellant thereupon filed an application before the Rent
Controller for executing the order of eviction dated 14 December 2008.
On 3 June 2008 the Rent Controller issued a warrant of possession. The
appellate court declined to stay execution on 14 June 2008. This led to a D
second round of proceedings before the High Court in the form of a
Civil Revision Application (RA No. 3922 of 2008) by which the
respondents challenged the order of the Rent Controller dated 14
November 2007 making a provisional determination of the rent, the order
of eviction dated 14 December 2007 and the order dated 14 June 2008 E
of the appellate authority declining to stay the execution proceedings.
11. A learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the Civil
Revision on 14 June 2008 though by then, the respondents claim to have
deposited an amount of Rupees 6.50 lakhs towards the arrears of rent.
The High Court held that on 31 March 2008 it had'already dismissed the F
civil revision against the interim order passed by the appellate authority
and hence a fresh application was barred. Moreover, the High Court
noted that a substantive appeal against the order of eviction was pending
before the appellate authority. The appellate authority was directed to
dispose of the appeal expeditiously, by 28 February 2009.
G
12. A Special Leave Petition was filed before this Comi against
the order of the High Court dismissing the Civil Revision. During the
pendency of the special leave petition the appellate authority dismissed
the appeal against the order of eviction on 25 February 2009. The
2 RA 1948 of2008
H
452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R.

A respondents failed to comply with the order passed by this Court for
depositing the entire arrears within two months. Eventually, the special
leave petition was dismissed on 2April 2012 and an interim order passed
by this Court earlier was vacated.
13. Thereafter a third round of proceedings was initiated before
B the High Court in the form ofa Civil Revision Application (RA No. 3202
of 2009) in which the order of eviction and the order of the appellate
authority dismissing the appeal of the respondents was questioned. The
High Court by its judgment and order dated 29 April 2015 has allowed
the civil revision and set aside the order of eviction. The High Court has
principally relied on the fact that by the provisional order of assessment
c the Rent Controller had directed the respondents to deposit rent with
effect from I June 2005 though the tenant was alleged to have been in
default with effect from I November 2005. Since the order of provisional
assessment has been held to be flawed on this ground, the consequential
order of eviction has been held to be contrary to law. However, the
D proceedings have now been remanded for consideration of the ground
of non-use on which a decree for eviction has also been sought. . The
judgment of the High Court is called into question in these proceedings.
14. The first submission which has been urged on behalf of the
appellant is that the correctness of the order of eviction dated 14
E December 2007 was called into question in the first civil revision
Application that was filed before the High Court. The dismissal of the
application on 31 March 2008, it was asserted, culminated in the challenge
to the order of eviction being concluded. The order of the High Court
dated 31 March 2008 has attained finality, there being no further
proceedings before this Court. Hence it has been submitted that the
F challenge to the order of eviction in appeal did not survive upon the
dismissal of the Civil Revision Application on 31 March 2008. This
submission was sought to be further buttressed by adverting to the
principle ofissue estoppel as elaborated in the judgments of this Court in
Hope Plantations Ltd. v. Taluk Land Board, Peermade and Anr.3
G and Narayan Dutt Tiwari v. Rohit Shekhar and Anr.4 .
15. In order to address the submission, it would be necessary to
note at the outset that following the failure of the respondents to comply
with the provisional assessment made by the Rent Controller on
' (1999) 5 sec 590
H ' (2012) 12 sec 554
DALIP KAUR BRAR v. MIS.GURU GRANTH SAHIB SEWA 453
MISSION (REGD.) AND ANR.[DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

14 November 2007, the order of eviction was passed on 14 December A
2007. The respondents filed an appeal against the order of eviction and
on 7 January 2008 a conditional stay was granted subject to deposit.
The respondents filed an application for modification of the condition of
deposit and for extension of time. When both the applications were
dismissed by the appellate Court they instituted proceedings before the
B
High Court invoking its revisionaljurisdiction. Undoubtedly, the frame
of the civil revision incorporated a challenge to the order of eviction as
well as to the orders passed by the appellate authority on 7 January 2008
(granting a conditional stay) and on 18 February 2008 (dismissing the
application for modification and extension). At that stage, the respondents
having already invoked the appellate remedy against the order of eviction, C
the substantive challenge to the order of eviction could not have been I·

the subject of a parallel proceeding before the High Court in a civil
revision. An appeal having been preferred against the order of eviction,
it would be natural to postulate that the respondents would have to first
exhaust the appellate remedy before seeking to question the final order D
of eviction in revision before the High Court. Moreover, the appeal was
not withdrawn. The scope of the challenge by the respondents before
the High Court in revision was in regard to the conditions which were
imposed by the appellate authority for staying the operation of the order
of eviction. The respondents were aggrieved by the condition of deposit
and by the refusal of the appellate authority to modify its order imposing E
those conditions. The revision traversed that limited area and it would be
impermissible to construe the judgment of the High Court dated 31 March
2008 as having brought down the curtains on the order of eviction dated
14 December 2007. The appeal filed against the order of eviction was
still pending and there is no reason to assume that the High Court would,
despite the recourse that was taken by the tenants to the appellate remedy;. F
interdict the exercise ofjurisdiction by the appellate authority in exercise !,
of the statutory right of appeal under Section 1S(l)(b) of the Act.
16. There can be no dispute about the position in law. The decision
in Hope Plantations Limited (supra) formulates the principle in the
following observations : G
"26.~,When the proceedings have attained finality parties are
bound by the judgment and are estopped from questioning it. They
cannot litigate again on ~he same cause of action nor can they
litigate any issue which was necessary for decision in the earlier
H
454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 5 S.C.R.

A litigation. These two aspects are "cause of action estoppel" and
"issue estoppel". These two terms are of common law origin.
Again, once an issue has been finally determined, parties cannot
subsequently in the same suit advance arguments or adduce
further evidence directed to showing that the issue was wrongly
determined. Their only remedy is to approach the higher forum if
B
available. The determination of the issue between the parties gives
rise to, as noted above, an issue estoppel ...."
In the subsequent judgment of a Bench of two learned Judges in
Narayan Dutt Tiwari (supra), it has been held that principles of res
judicata and constructive res judicata apply also to successive stages
C of the same proceedings. However, in the present case this principle
would not stand attracted for the simple reason that the legality of the
order of eviction was the subject matter of a statutory appeal under
Section 15( I )(b) before the appellate authority. Properly construed, the
scope of the revision application before the High Court, during the
D pendency of the appeal, related to the conditions which were imposed
by the appellate authority for staying the order of eviction. The decision
of the High Court dated 31 March 2008 would hence have to be construed
as a view taken upon the legality ofthe conditions imposed by the appellate
authority for staying the order of eviction and not in regard to the legality
of the order of eviction which was pending consideration in the appeal.
E We therefore do not find merit in the first submission which has been
urged on behalf of the appellant.
17. The next aspect of the matter arises from the provisions of
Section 13. Insofar as it is material, Section 13 provides as follows:

F "13. Eviction of tenants.- (I) A tenant in possession of a building
or rented land shall not be evicted therefrom in execution of a
decree passed before or after the commencement of this Act or
otherwise and whether before or after the termination of tenancy,
except in accordance with the provisions of this section, or in
pursuance of an order made under Section 13 of the East Punjab
G Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, as subsequently amended.
(2) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the
Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after
giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against
the applicant, is satisfied-
H
DALIP KAUR BRAR v. MIS.GURU GRANTH SAHIB SEWA 455
MISSION (REGO.) AND ANR.[DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

(i) that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due by him in A
respect of the building or rented land within fifteen days afterthe
expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy with his
landlord or in the absence of any such agreement, by the last day
of the month next following that for which the rent is payable:
Provided that ifthe tenant on the first hearing of the applications B
for ejectment after due service pays or tenders the arrears of
rent and interest at six per cent 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.
c
*** *** ***
The Contro lier may make an order directing the tenant to put the
landlord in possession of the building or rented land and if the
Controller is not so satisfied he shall make an order rejecting the
application: D
Provided that the Controller may give the tenant a reasonable
time for putting the landlord in possession of the building or rented
land and may extend such time so as not to exceed three months
in the aggregate."
I 8. Sub-section (I) of Section 13 contains a bar to the eviction of E
a tenant who is in possession of a building or rented land except in
accordance with the provisions of the Section or in pursuance of an
order passed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction
Act 1949. A landlord who seeks the eviction of his tenant must under
sub-section (2) apply to the Rent Controller. Clause (i) of sub-section
F
(2) empowers the Rent Controller to pass an order of eviction (directing
the tenant to put the landlord in possession) ifthe tenant has not paid or
tendered the rent due by him within 15 days of the expiry of the time
fixed in the agreement of tenancy or, where there is no agreement, by
the last day of the month following the month for which the rent is payable.
The proviso to clause (i) of sub-section (2) is in the nature of a concession G
by which the legislature has introduced a deeming fiction. The deeming
fiction arises where the tenant at the first hearing of the application for
ejectment pays or tenders the arrears of rent together ',Vith interest at
six per cent per annum and the costs of the application assessed by the
Rent Controller. If this condition is fulfilled, the deeming fiction that H
456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] S S.C.R.

A comes into being is that the tenant shall be deemed to have duly paid or
tendered the rent "within the time aforesaid". The expression "within
the time aforesaid" obviously is in reference to the time for payment of
rent which is stipulated in the substantive part of clause (i) of sub-section
(2) immediately before the commencement of the proviso.
B 19. Hence the position is that the tenant must pay or tender the
rent within 1S days of the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of
tenancy or in the absence thereof "by the last date of the month ·next
following that for which the rent is payable". If the tenant fails to do so,
the Rent Controller upon being moved by the landlord is empowered to
order the eviction of the tenant. This consequence is however obviated
C upon compliance with the terms of the proviso. Before a tenant can
claim the benefit of the proviso, it is necessary that its terms must be
observed. Where the tenant upon an assessment• being made by the
Rent Controller has on the first hearing of the application for eviction
paid or tendered the arrears of rent together with interest and costs as
D assessed by the Controller, by a deeming fiction oflaw, the tenant would
be treated to have duly paid or tendered the rent within the period as
stipulated in the statutory provision. In order to seek the benefit of the
proviso, there has to be first an assessment by the controller; second,
the payment or tendering of the rent, interest and costs by the tenant in
terms of the order of the Rent Controller and third, such payment or
E tender must be on the first hearing of the application for ejectment. But
for the proviso, a tenant in default would be liable to suffer an order of
eviction for default in paying rent. The proviso makes a concessio~ but
conditions the benefit of the concession granted to the tenant subject to
compliance with its conditions. If the tenant complies with the conditions,
F the deeming fiction comes into existence. lfthe tenant fails to fulfil the
conditions, the Rent Controller will be empowered to order eviction. To
protect himself against suffering the consequence of eviction, the tenant
has no option but to tender or pay the rent, interest and costs assessed
by the Rent Controller on the first hearing of the application for ejectment.
Ifhe fails to do so, the tenant will not have the benefit of the deeming
G fiction by which the consequence of a default in payment is obviated.
20. In Rakesh Wadhawan and Ors.v. Jagdamba Industrial
Corporation and Ors.5 , a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court
construed the provisions of Section l 3(2)(i). Its conclusions were
summarised thus :
H ' (2002)5 sec 440
DALIP KAUR BRAR v. MIS.GURU GRANTH SAHIB SEWA 457
MISSION (REGD.) AND ANR.[DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

"To sum up, our conclusions are : A
I. In Section l 3(2)(i) proviso, the words "assessed by the
Controller" qualify not merely the words "the cost ofapplication"
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". B
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 C
the tenant must pay or tender on the "first date of hearing"
after th'e 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 D
Controller.
4. On the failure of the tenant to comply, nothing remains to be
done and an order for eviction shall follow. If the tenant makes
compliance, the inquiry shall continue for finat!y adjudicating
upon the dispute as to the arrears of rent in the light of the E
contending pleas raised by the landlord and the tenant before
the Controller.

5. If the final adjudication by the Controller be at variance with
his interim or provisional order passed under the proviso, one
of the following two orders may be.made depending on the F
facts situation of a given case. If the amount deposited by the
tenant is found to be in excess, the Controller may direct a
refund. If, on the other hand, the amount deposited by the tenant
is found to be short or deficient, the Controller may pass a
conditional order directing the tenant to place the landlord in G
possession of the premises by giving a reasonable time to the
tenant for paying or tendering the deficit amount, failing which
alone he shall be liable to be evicted. Compliance shall save
him from eviction.

H
458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R.

A 6. While exercising discretion for affording the tenant an
opportunity of making good the deficit, one of the relevant
factors to be taken into consideration by the Controller would
be, whether the tenant has paid or tendered with substantial
regularity the rent falling due month by month during the
pendency of the proceedings".
B
21. The decision in Wadhawan (Supra) lays down that under the
proviso to clause (i) of sub-section (2) of Section 13 the Rent Controller
is obliged to assess the arrears of rent, interest and costs of a litigation
which the tenant must pay on the first date of hearing. If there is a
dispute raised about the quantum of the arrears of rent or about the rate
c ofrent the Controller will initially make a provisional assessment. The
provisional assessment is based on a prima facie view formed by the
Controller on the basis of the pleadings or such other material as may be
available. Such amount as determined by the Controller must be paid by
the tenant on the first date of hearing after the date of the provisional
D order passed by the Controller. The date of first hearing is the date on
which the Controller applies his mind to the facts involved in the case.
Once the Rent Controller has made a provisional assessment of the
rent, interest and costs, the tenant is required to pay or tender the amount
provisionally assessed on the first date of hearing of the application for
ejectment. The provisional adjudication is subject to a subsequent final
E adjudication by the Rent Controller. The final adjudication by the Rent
Controller may hold that the quantum of arrears as determined is (i) the
' same as that which was found due under the provisional order; (ii) less
than what was dete1mined by the provisional order; or (iii) more than
what was held to be due and payable under the provisional order. In the
F first eventuality, the Rent Controller would proceed to terminate the
proceedings. li1 the second eventuality, the Rent Controller may direct
that the amount deposited in excess be refunded to the tenant (or adjusted
against future payments due). In the third eventuality, the Rent Controller
may pass a conditional order affording the tenant an opportunity of
reasonable time for depositing the amount (in deficit) failing which the
G tenant would be liable to be evicted. In passing such an order the Rent
Controller furnishes' an opportunity to the tenant to make good the deficit
in terms of the final order of assessment. The deposit by the tenant in
terms of the final order of assessment, within the period fixed by the
Rent Controller would protect the tenant from the consequence of an
H order of ejectment.
DALIP KAUR BRAR v. MIS.GURU GRANTH SAHIB SEWA 459
MISSION (REGD.) AND ANR.[DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

22. The judgment in Wadhawan (supra) was reaffirmed A
subsequently by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court in Vinod
Kumar v. Premlata6 •
23. In a subsequent decision ofa Bench of two learned Judges in
Harjit Singh Uppal v. Anup Bansal', this Court considered the impact
of the statutory right of appeal which is available to the tenant under B
Section 15(l)(b). Section 15(l)(b) is in the following terms:
"15. Vesting of appellate authority on officers by State
Government.-
(l)(a)
c
(b) Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Controller
may, within fifteen days from the date of such order or such longer
period as the appellate authority may allow for reasons to be
recorded in writing, prefer an appeal in writing to the appellate
authority havingjurisdiction. In computing the period of fifteen
days the time taken to obtain a ce11ified copy of the order appealed . D
against shall be excluded."
In that case, the landlord who was the respondent before this
Court had sued the tenant for eviction on the ground of a default in the
payment of rent. The Rent Controller made a provisional determination
of the arrears ofrent together with interest and costs which was directed E
to be deposited by a stipulated date. The tenant made an application for
recalling the order on the ground that the payment which he h'ad made to
the landlord had not been considered. The Rent Controller r_ejected the
application and, upon the failure of the tenant to comply with the order
of provisional assessment, an order of eviction was passed. The tenant
F
preferred an appeal under Section 15( 1)(b ). The appellate authority held
that the order of provisional assessment was liable to be set aside. An
order of remand was passed by the appellate authority directing th.e
Rent Controller to determine the provisional assessment afresh. In a
revision by the landlord before the High Court, a learned single Judge
held that since the tenant had not availed of the remedy to challenge the G
order fixing provisional rent during the period between the date of the
order and the date fixed for payment, the Rent Controller had no choice

' (2003) 11 sec 397
1 (2011)11 sec 672
H
460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.<::.R.

A but to order eviction. Accordingly, the High Court while allowing the
revision petition set aside the order of the appellate authority and restored
the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. This Court held in
appeal that while the determination of provisional rent by the Rent
Controller is foundational to an order of eviction, where the tenant has
failed to comply with the order of provisional assessment, neve1theless
B
such an order is interlocutory in the sense it does not determine the
principal matter finally. In the view of this Court, though the tenant may
not have challenged a provisional order of assessment at the interlocutory
stage, there is no impediment to lay a challenge to the provisional
assessment in an appeal against the final order :
c "24. We find no impediment for an aggrieved person, on reading
Section 15(1 )(b) of the 1949 Rent Act, that an interlocutory order
which had not been appealed though an appeal lay, could not be
challenged in an appeal from the final order. In our opinion, Section
15( I) (b) does not make it imperative upon the person aggrieved
D to appeal from an interlocutory order and, ifhe does not do so, his
right gets forfeited when he challenges the final order.
25. It is true that an order of eviction follows as a matter of course
ifthere is non-compliance with the order dete1mining the provisional
rent but when tenant challenges the order of eviction and therein
E also challenges the order of fixation of provisional rent- the order
of eviction, in its nature, being dependant on the correctness of
the order fixing the provisional rent and there being no indication
to the contrary in Section 15(1) (b) - it must be open to the
appellate authority to go into the correctness of such provisional
order when put in issue."
F
24. The position that emerges in law is that once the Rent Controller
has nade a provisional assessment of the arrears of rent, interest and
costs, the tenant must deposit the amount so determined on the'first
. hearing of the application for ejectment. A tenant who does so would be
deemed to have duly paid or tendered the rent within the time prescribed
G by the substantive provision of Section 13(2)(i). A tenant failing to comply
with the terms of an order of provisional assessment, cannot thereafter
avail of the concession extended to a tenant, through the proviso under
Section 13(2)(i), and will be liable to sufferan order ofeviction. However,
·having suffered the order of eviction, the tenant is entitled to the statutory
H remedy of an appeal under Section 15( l )(b ). The determination of a
DALIP KAUR BRAR v. MIS.GURU GRANTH SAHIB SEWA 461
MISSION (REGD.) AND ANR.[DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

provisional assessment being the foundation of the order of eviction (which A
flows from the non-compliance of the terms of the provisional
assessment), the tenant in an appeal against the order of eviction is
entitled to question the correctness of the order of provisional assessment.
This is available even after an order of eviction has been passed. Harjit
Singh Uppal (supra} holds that the right is not lost upon an order of
8
eviction being passed.
25. In the present case, the petition for eviction that was filed by
the appellant proceeded on the basis that the rent had remained in arrears
from 1November2005. The averment in the petition was to the following
effect:
c
"(a) That the Respondents have neither paid for tendered the due
rentw.e.f. 01.11.2005 to 3 l.05.2006@Rs.25,000/-p.m. and w.e.f.
01.06.2006 onwards at the rate of Rs.28,000/- p.m. Even the
cheques issued by the Respondents in favour of the petitioner
have been dishonoured."
D
26. The Rent Controller by his order dated 14 November 2007
required the respondent to deposit the arrears of rent with effect from 1
June 2005 till the filing of the petition and thereafter till the passing of the
order at the rate of Rupees 19,000 per annum together with interest at 6
per cent per annum and costs quantified at Rupees 500 on 14 December
2007. Though the rent was directed to be deposited with effect from I E
June 2005 (and not 1 November 2005) it must be noted that the tenant
got the benefit ofan order for depositing only Rupees I 9,000 per month
(as against the agreed rent of Rupees 25,0QO per month till 31 May
2006, and Rupees 28,000 per month thereafter). The Respondents did
not deposit anything- not even the admitted amount-within the period F
fixed. In the course of the hearing of the Civil Revision, the appellant
conceded before the High Court that the determination of arr41ars with
effect from 1 June 2005 was erroneous since the Rent Controller ought
to have determined the arrears only from 1 November 2005. The High
Court has recorded the concession in the following observations :
G
" ....The counsel for the landlord is prepared to admit that the
Rent Controller had made a mistake in making a reference that
the Rent determined by it namely Rs.19,000/- to be payable from
01.06.2005 and that it should have been only from 01.11.2005."
On this foundation, the High Court observed thus :
H
)

462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R.

A " ..... I have already observed that the landlord's counsel does not
deny before me that the direction to pay rent from 0.l .06.2005
was a mistake. The determination of provisional rent could not be
merely with reference to the rate of rent but also the quantum of
rent. The quantum of rent by its reference to a period when there
was no default, was therefore, in error and the correctness of
8
such finding was surely susceptible for a challenge to Appellate
Forum. The Appellate Authority ought to have seen that if it was
admitted that the tenant was in default only from 01.11.2005, the
payment of arrears for 30 months was mistake, it was liable to be
set aside. That had the consequential relevance for also setting
c aside the order of ejectment that was passed for alleged non-
compliance of the order which was erroneous. If the first order
of determination of provisional rent was erroneous and liable to
be set aside, the consequential order of ejectment for non-
compliance was also bound to be set aside."
D Was the High Court correct in taking this view?
27. One line of interpretation for construing the provisions of
Section 13 is that which has been suggested on behalf of the respondents.
According to this interpretation (which seeks to draw sustenance from
the observations in Harjit Singh Uppal (supra)), the tenant would be at
E libet1y to ignore the order of provisional assessment passed by the Rent
Controller and upon the passing of an order of eviction for non-compliance,
to pursue the remedy of an appeal under Section 15( I )(b ). According to
this line of interpretation, ln the appeal wider Section 15( I)(b) the tenant
may demonstrate that the order of provisional assessment was erroneous
and as a consequence thereof, the order of eviction must fail. The issue
F is whether such an interpretation must be adopted invariably in all cases.
In our view, the interpretation of the provisions of Section 13 must bring
about a just balance between the rights of the tenant and those of the
landlord. On the one hand, there is a need for protecting the tenant
against being subjected to a disproportionate demand by the landlord
G and of suffering in consequence, an unjust decree of eviction. On the
other hand there is a need to protect the landlord against the tactics
which a recalcitrant tenant may adopt by deploying every gambit in the
rule book to defeat the just claims of the landlord to the payment of rent.
The judgment rendered by this Court in Wadhawan (supra) and reaffirmed
by a Bench of three Judges in Vinod Kumar(supra) brings about a just
H
DALIP KAUR BRAR v. MIS.GURU GRANTH SAHIB SEWA 463
MISSION (REGD.) AND ANR.[DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

balance by interposing the function of the Rent Controller who determines A
on a provisional basis the arrears of rent, interest and costs. This
determination ensures on the one hand that while the tenant is protected
against an unjust demand by the landlord, the landlord in turn is not
deprived of the just dues owing on_ account of the use and occupation of
the property by the tenant. Upon a provisional determination being made
B
by the Rent Controller, the tenant must deposit the amount of the demand,
on the first hearing of the application for ejectment. What needs to be
kept in mind is, that the proviso under 13(2) (i) is a concession, and also,
that it is based on a provisional "assessment". A tenant admitting to be in
arrears of rent, within the parameters provided for under Section l 3(2)(i),
is liable to eviction forthwith. To avail of the concession, the provisional c
"assessment", must be complied with. If the tenant does so the payment
is deemed to have been made within time. If the tenant fails to do that,
the Rent Controller is empowered to pass a decree for eviction. The
manner in which a wrongful provisional "assessment" will be remedied
have been laid down in Waclhawan and Vinocl Kumar {supra). The
D
tenant upon complying with the order of the Rent Controller is not left
without a remedy. When the Rent Controller subsequently makes a final
determination of the rent payable, if it is found that the tenant has paid
an amount in excess, the Rent Controller can issue directions for refund
or adjustment, as the case may be. A tenant who complies with an order
of provisional assessment by the Rent Controller is to be protected against E
eviction. At the same time, the tenant is entitled to pursue the challenge
to the assessment made by the Rent Controller. A tenant who fails to
observe the orderof provisional assessment will not be protected against
an order of eviction. That will, however, not deprive the tenant of a right
of appeal, as held in Harjit Singh Uppal (supra).
F
28. The dispute which the tenant seeks to raise in regard to the
rent which is payable may straddle several aspects. There qiay be a
dispute of the rate of rent. The period over which the rent has not been
paid may be in dispute. Where the tenant has admitted that the rent is
due and payable at least for a certain period, it is necessary that the
Court should adopt an interpretation which does not permit the tenant to G
defeat the just claim of the landlord. The present case is an object example
of such a situation. The lease agreement between the parties provided
for a rent of Rupees 25,000 for the first year of the lease ending on 31
May 2006, and which was to stand enhanced to Rupees 28,000 for the
H
,.

464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R.

A remaining two years. The Rent Controller directed the tenant to deposit
only an amount of Rupees 19,000 (representing the component of the
basic rent for the first year, the remaining amount of Rupees 6,000 being
towards furniture and fixtures). After the Rent Controller made his
provisional determination on 14 November 2007 the tenant sought to
dispute essentially that part of the determination by which the Rent
B
Controller had fixed the amount due.and payable from l June 2005. The
prayers made by the tenant in the review petition would indicate that
even according to the tenant, rent was due and payable at least for the
duration which was referred to therein. The tenant was granted, in the
appeal filed against-the order of eviction, a conditional stay requiring the
C tenant to deposit the arrears and to continue to pay the rent for the
subsequent period on a monthly basis. The tenant failed to comply with
this order. An application for modification and for extension of time was
moved which was rejected by the appellate Court. The civil revision
against the order of rejection was also dismissed by the High Court. The
D appellant has provided in the special leave petition a table setting out the
cheques that were issued by the respondents in favour of the appellant
both towards the rent and towards furniture and fixtures which were
dishonoured. This is extracted below :
Cheques issued by the Respondents in favour of Petitioner Dalip
Kaur, which were dishonoured
E
SI.No. Cheque No. Amount Dated Bank Reason for
(Rs.) di~honour
1 055192 19,000/~ 7.11.2005 Bank of Insufficient
Punjab Funds
F 2 055194 19,000/- 7.12.2005 -do- -do-
3 055196 19,000.'- 7.1.2006 -do- -do-
4 055198 19,0001- 71.2006 -do- -do-
5 055200 19,000/- 7.3.2006 -do- -do-
6 069589 19,000/- 7.4.2006 -do- -do-
7 069404 19,000i- 7.5.2006 -do- -fo-
G s 069448 21,000/- 7.3.2008 Bank of -do-
Punjabi
Centurion
Bank
9 0694.50 -do- 7.4.2008 -do-
10 069581 -do- 7.7.2008 -do- ·'
H
DALIP KAUR BRAR v. MJS.GURU GRANTH SAHIB SEWA 465
MISSION (REGD.) AND ANR.[DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

Cheques issued by the Respondents towards furnitures and A
fixtures in favour of Pushp Roop Singh Brar which were dishonoured

SI.No. Cheque No. Amount Dated Bank Reason for
(Rs.) dishonour
1 069449 7,000/- 7.3.2008 Bank of Insufficient B
Punjab,·HDFC Funds
Bank
2. 069576 7,0001- 7.4.2008 -do- -do-
3. 069582 7,000!- 7.7.2008 -do- -do-
c
The appellant was constrained to file a complaint under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. She is a widow who has
been made to run from pillar to post to secure the just payment of dues
legitimately owing to her. The respondents are facing trial and have
been granted bail by the CJM, Ludhiana. The conduct of the respondents D
has been noticed in the judgment of the High Court dated 31 March
2008 where the High Court records that :
" .... the petitioners admitted the fact that they were unable to pay
the arrears ofrent and sought one month's more time to arrange
the money." E
The High Court further observed as follows :
"As the facts would speak for themselves, the petitioners have
been adopting one or the other delaying tactics in order to wriggle
out of their liability to pay the arrears ofrent. Firstly, they contended
that since the arrears of rent were demanded by the respondent F
with effect from 1.11.2005, they could not be asked by the Rent
Controller to tender the.same with effect from 1.6.2005.
Be that as it may, the Appellate Authority vi de order dated 7.1.2008
granted them stay and permitted the petitioners to pay the rent
within a period of one month. Had there been any bona fide intention G
to pay the rent, the petitioners could deposit the same without
prejudice to their rights and any excess payment, if any, could
very well be adjusted against the future rent. However, instead of
depositing the arrears ofrent, they sought extension of time and
wanted to deposit only part of the arrears of rent.
H
,·
'
466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 5 S.C.R.

A If one reads the application moved by the petitioners for extension
oftime, it can be safely inferred that before the Appellate Authority,
they coined a new objection against payment of rent for the
subsequent period by 7'h of every calendar month. The petitioners
presumably wanted to suggest that they could be directed to pay
the arrears ofrent till the filing of the ejectment petition only and
B
not for the subsequent period.
In these circumstances when either the petitioners are unable to
pay the rent due to lack of funds or they deliberately don't want
to pay the same, no case to interfere with the impugned orders in
exercise of the revisionaljurisdiction of this Court is made out."
c
The facts before the Court leave no manner of doubt that there
was a stubborn and steadfast unwillingness on the part of the tenant to
comply with the order passed by the Rent Controller even to the extent
of non-deposit of rent for the period for which it was admittedly due and
payable. The tenant even went to the extent of claiming that a direction
D could have only been issued for the deposit of the arrears and not for the
payment of the rent for subsequent months as directed by the appellate
court as a condition for the grant of stay. Accepting the line of
interpretation which has been suggested by the respondents would lead
to a situation where, though the rate of rent is not in dispute and the
E tenant admits that rent is due and payable for a ce11ain duration of time
(while disputing the quantum of arrears) the landlord in pursuance of a
determination made on a provisional basis by the Rent Controller would
be deprived of the rent due and payable, while the tenant takes a chance
of being able to demonstrate in the course of an appeal against the order
of eviction that the initial determination for a certain part of the period
F was not payable. In our view such an interpretation would defeat the
object and purpose of Section 13 and the rationale for the decision of
this Court in Wadhawan (supra) which has brought about a balance
between the rights of the landlord and the tenant. If the respondents
intended to dispute the claim ofarrears for a specified period, there was
G no reason or justification for them not to deposit the rent. It needs to be
kept in mind, that the legislative concession, extended to tenants through
the proviso under Section 13(2)(i), is available conditionally. To be entitled
to be saved against eviction, the tenant must satisfy the conditions laid
down. To understand the words "assessed by the Rent Controller'', as
"correctly assessed", would not be proper. Arrears payable by a tenant,
H
DALIP KAUR BRAR v. MIS.GURU GRANTH SAHIB SEWA 467
MISSION (REGD.).AND ANR.[DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

would be correctly assessed only after evidence is recorded and A
concluded. The instant assessment is clearly provisional. It is made, even
before evidence has commenced to be recorded. Therefore, it would be
improper to understand and extend to such assessment, any further
meaning. Every kind of excuse was made by the tenant for not paying
the rent due and payable. As we have set out earlier the cheques that
B
were issued to the appellant were dishonoured. In this view of the
matter, the tenant cannot have the benefit of the observations contained
in the judgment of this Court in Hariit Singh Uppal (supra) for the
simple reason that they would not come to the aid of a tenant who has
not deposited even the admitted dues in pursuance of the determination
which has been made by the Rent Controller, even though the proviso C
extends the concession, only to tenants who have complied. The High
Court while determining whether the provisional determination of the
Rent Controller was correct or othe1wise could not have ignored the
position that while the rent payable was Rupees 25,000 per month till 31
May 2006 and Rupees 28,000 per month from I June 2006, the Rent
D
Controller had directed a deposit only of Rupees 19,000 per month. The
Respondents deposited nothing within the period fixed and a deposit
made in May 2008 would not enure to their benefit.
29. For these reasons, we are of the view that the High Court fell
into error in allowing the revision application against the judgment and
order of the appellate authority and in setting aside the order of eviction. E
The Civil Revision filed by the respondents was liable to be dismissed
and we order accordingly.
30. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned
order of the High Court dated 29April2015. The order of eviction passed
by the Rent Controller as confirmed by the appellate authority shall F
accordingly stand restored.
31. The respondents shall pay costs to the appellant quantified at
Rupees 50,000.

G
Divya Pandey Appeal allowed.