SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. - (1.)IN this revision petition filed by the tenant against the order of his eviction on one ground out of several grounds, the question arises for consideration is, whether the landlord without filing separate revision petition against the rejection of his ejectment application on other grounds, can support the order of ejectment on the ground that the other grounds of ejectment were wrongly decided against him by the Courts below.
(2.)IN this case, the respondent-landlord filed an ejectment application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the petitioner-tenant from the demised premises on the grounds of (a) non-payment of rent; (b) change of user; (c) materially impairing the value and utility of the demised premises by raising illegal constructions; and (d) that the premises became the unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The Rent Controller, after taking into consideration the evidence led by the parties, vide its judgment dated 9.8.1979, passed the order of ejectment against the petitioner-tenant while holding that the tenant did not tender the complete arrears of rent on the first date of hearing, that the construction raised by the tenant has materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises and that the premises became unfit and unsafe for human habitation.
On appeal, the Appellate Authority under the Act, though confirmed the order of ejectment of the tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent, but reversed the findings recorded by the Rent Controller on the issues of materially impairing the value and utility of the demised premises and that the premises became unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Against the said order of ejectment, the tenant filed the instant revision petition.

(3.)COUNSEL for the petitioners submitted that the ejectment of the tenant on the ground of short tender made by him on the first date of hearing is liable to be set aside in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan and others v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and others, 2002(1) RCR(Rent) 514 : (2002-2)131 PLR 370, wherein it has been held that the Rent Controller is under obligation to make an assessment of the arrears of rent, the interest on such arrears and the cost of the application by way of provisional order which the tenant is to comply with on the first date of hearing. If he complies with the said order and disputes to the arrears of rent in light of the plea raised by him, the Rent Controller will finally adjudicate that dispute. If the amount deposited by the tenant, under the provisional order is found to be in excess, the Rent Controller may direct its refund and if the amount deposited is found to be short or deficient, the Rent Controller may pass a conditional order directing the tenant to place the landlord in possession of the premises by giving a reasonable time to him for paying or tendering the deficit amount, failing which he shall liable to be evicted. He further submitted that the judgment in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra) has been re-affirmed by the Supreme court in Vinod Kumar v. Prem Lata, 2003(2) RCR(Rent) 329 : (2003)11 SCC 397 : JT 2003(7) SC 574, which pertained to the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 having the pari materia provisions with regard to the ejectment on non-payment of rent.