Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J. - (1.) THIS civil revision petition by the tenant is directed against the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller of 1.3.2002 and of the Appellate Authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, "the Act") of 2.12.2003 whereby his eviction has been ordered on the ground of non -payment of arrears of rent. In this revision petition, it is claimed that the arrears of rent from 1.11.1991 to 30.11.1993 had been claimed. Assessment of provisional rent was made by the Rent Controller on 24.2.1994. Sequelly; total payment of Rs. 1,400/ - i.e. Rs. 1,120/ - as arrears of rent, Rs. 180/ - as interest and Rs. 100/ - as costs of the petition was made by the tenant to the landlord but though respondent -landlord in his application of 9.3.1994 had made request for refund of Rs. 372/ - to the petitioner -tenant but in fact, the landlord had returned the entire amount of Rs. 1,400/ - on 25.3.1994.
(2.) IT is claimed that the first date of hearing, in fact, was to arrive only after 15 days of striking off the issues whereas no order of provisional assessment of arrears of rent, with interest and costs was passed in absence of which the tenant -petitioner had no opportunity to tender the arrears of rent. It is claimed that even otherwise, tender of rent made by the tenant earlier had been accepted by the landlord and there was no ground of nonpayment of rent left to be adjudicated. Counsel for the respondent -landlord, on the other hand, has urged that in terms of provisions of the Act, the Rent Controller had made provisional order for payment of arrears of rent and costs on 24.2.1994 and after making payment once, the tenant had withdrawn the entire amount of tender from the landlord asserting that no payment was due to the landlord and the payment already made was illegal. It is, inter alia, contended that since there was no payment of arrears of rent in terms of the Act, there was no option with the Rent Controller but to pass order of eviction which was rightly passed by the Rent Controller and later was correctly affirmed by the Appellate Authority.
(3.) HEARING has been provided to the counsel for the parties while going through the paper book.;