REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL  APPEAL NO.   4416  OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 30300 of 2010)

Harjit Singh Uppal …. Appellant

Versus

Anup Bansal           …. Respondent  

JUDGMENT  

R.M. Lodha, J.  

Leave granted.   

2. The main question for determination in this appeal,  by  

special leave, is: If a tenant  does not avail his remedy to challenge  

the order of the provisional rent fixed under Section 13(2)(i) proviso  

to the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, ‘1949  

1

Rent Act’) by filing an appeal under Section 15(1)(b) within 15 days  

from date of such order,  whether the order fixing provisional rent  

becomes final and cannot be challenged subsequently, particularly,  

in the appeal challenging the order of eviction.

3. The facts are these. The petition under Section 13 of the  

1949 Rent Act was filed by the Respondent (‘landlord’)  to evict the  

appellant (‘tenant’) from Komfort Banquet Hall, Zirakpur-Panchkula  

Road, Zirakpur,  Tehsil Dera Bassi, District S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali)  

(for short, ‘the premises’) before the Court of Rent Controller, Dera  

Bassi on December 6, 2008. The landlord  averred that the premises  

were leased out to the tenant  for a  term of five years commencing  

from August 11, 2003 at the  rent of  Rs. 1,50,000/- per month. As  

per the terms of lease, rent would increase at the rate of 5 per cent  

every year on the last prevailing rent and it was also agreed that the  

tenant  shall pay the rent for every month in advance by the 7th of  

month.   It is the case of the landlord that tenant  stopped paying the  

rent since April, 2007 regularly.   Ultimately,  after the expiry of the  

first lease period, the tenant requested for reduction in rent and he  

agreed to pay the rent of the premises at the rate of Rs. 1,50,000/-  

per  month with  effect  from August  11,  2008 for  the period of  31  

2

months. The tenant  also agreed to pay the Service Tax at the rate  

of  12.5 per cent and also increase the rent at the rate of  5 per cent  

every year on the last prevailing rent.

4.   The claim of eviction, inter alia,  was founded on the  

ground of default.  It was  averred that the tenant  failed to make the  

payment of rent regularly  and has fallen in arrears to the extent of  

Rs. 27,84,875.04  along with  Service Tax  at the rate of 12.5 per  

cent.   

5. The  tenant   filed  written  statement  and  traversed  the  

case set up by the landlord  in the petition for eviction. He averred  

that  the  premises  were  incomplete  at  the  time  of  lease  and  he  

invested huge amount  for its completion by taking loan from the  

banks  amounting  to    Rs.  58,98,370/-.   The  tenant  claimed  

adjustment of that amount.   He also stated in the  written statement  

that he has been paying rent to the landlord  regularly –  mostly by  

cheques- and from 2007 he has paid Rs. 37,00,950/- to the landlord.  

He raised counter claim and claimed refund of the excess amount  

paid to the landlord.

6.  On June 6, 2009,  the tenant   filed an affidavit before  

the  Rent  Controller   setting  out  in  detail  the  statement  of  the  

3

payment of rent made by him from April,  2007 amounting  to Rs.  

37,00,950/-.

7. The Rent Controller determined the provisional rent on  

June  11,  2009  assessing  the  arrears  of  rent  provisionally  at  

Rs. 27,84,875.04. The Rent Controller directed the tenant to make  

the payment of arrears of rent  as determined  with interest at the  

rate of 6 per cent per annum and costs  of   Rs. 1,000/- on July 18,  

2009.   

8. On September 7, 2009, the tenant  made an application  

before  the  Rent  Controller  for  recalling  the  order  dated June 11,  

2009, amongst other grounds, on the ground that his affidavit as well  

as the written statement  that he has also paid Rs. 37,00,950/-  to  

the landlord by way of cheques  has not at all been considered.  

9. The tenant   made another  application  on  February  9,  

2010  before the Rent  Controller  for calling upon the landlord  to  

provide list of his employees along with attendance register.  This,  

the tenant said, was required  to prove the factum of payment made  

by  him to the landlord.  

10. By yet another application, the tenant  annexed copies of  

cheques which were duly encashed by the Manager of the landlord.  

4

He  claimed  adjustment  of  those  payments  while  assessing  

provisional rent.

11. The  landlord   submitted  reply  to  each  of  these  

applications,  denied  their  correctness  and  submitted  that  the  

applications were not maintainable and have been made to delay  

the eviction proceedings.

12. The  Rent  Controller  considered  all  these  applications  

together and by her order dated April 7, 2010 rejected each one of  

these applications.  The Rent Controller held  that there was  no  

provision of law under which the order dated June 11, 2009 could be  

recalled/reviewed. It was held, relying upon a decision of this Court  

in  Rakesh  Wadhawan  and  others v.  Jagdamba  Industrial   

Corporation and others1, that on the failure of the tenant to comply  

with  the  order  of  the  provisional  assessment  of  arrears  of  rent,  

nothing  remains  to  be  done  and  order  of  eviction  has  to  follow.  

Accordingly,  the  Rent  Controller   passed  the   order  of  eviction  

against the tenant on April 7, 2010.   

13. The tenant preferred  an appeal under Section 15(1)(b)  

of  the 1949 Rent Act  before the Appellate Authority  assailing the  

1 (2002) 5 SCC 440

5

orders dated April 7, 2010 and June 11, 2009 passed by the Rent  

Controller.  

14. The Appellate Authority heard the parties and held that  

the provisional assessment order dated June 11, 2009 was patently  

illegal.   The Appellate Authority, accordingly, allowed the appeal by  

its order dated June 10, 2010, set aside the orders dated April 7,  

2010  and  June  11,  2009  passed  by  the  Rent  Controller  and  

remanded the matter to the Rent Controller with a direction to pass  

fresh order regarding the provisional assessment of the arrears of  

rent, interest and costs of the proceedings. The Appellate Authority  

also  directed  the  Rent  Controller   to     give  to  the  parties   an  

opportunity  to produce the documents/affidavits in support of their  

rival stand in respect of the rent.

15. The  landlord   challenged  the  order  passed  by  the  

Appellate Authority in the revision petition before the High Court of  

Punjab and Haryana. The Single Judge of that Court held that since  

the  tenant  did  not  avail  his  remedy to  challenge  the  order  fixing  

provisional rent, during the period between the date of the order and  

date fixed for  payment,  the Rent  Controller  had no choice but  to  

pass an order of eviction. The High Court, accordingly, by its  order  

6

dated  September  23,  2010  allowed  the  revision  petition  and  set  

aside the order of the Appellate Authority and restored the order of  

the Rent Controller.  

16. Section 13(2)(i) and the proviso appended thereto of the  

1949 Rent Act reads as follows :

“S. 13. Eviction of tenants.—(1) ………………………………

(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-

(i) that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due  by him in respect of the building or rented land within  fifteen  days after  the 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  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 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;  

(ii) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  (iii) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  (iv) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (v) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “

7

17. The provision of  appeal  from an order  passed by the  

Rent Controller is made in Section 15 of the 1949 Rent Act. To the  

extent it is relevant, it reads as under :

“S. 15. Vesting  of  appellate  authority  on  officers  by State Government.— (1)(a) ………………………………………………………

(1) (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  having  jurisdiction. In computing the period of fifteen days the time  taken  to  obtain  a  certified  copy  of  the  order  appealed  against shall be excluded.

2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”

18. This Court had an occasion to consider Section 13(2)(i)  

and  the  proviso  appended  thereto  in  the  case  of  Rakesh  

Wadhawan1 .   The Court summed up the conclusions as follows :

“30.  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  

8

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.

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  finally  adjudicating upon the dispute as to the arrears of rent in  the light of the 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  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 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.

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.”

9

19. The decision in Rakesh Wadhawan1   has been affirmed  

by a  3-Judge Bench decision  of  this  Court  in  the  case of  Vinod  

Kumar v. Prem Lata2.

20. Mr.  Rishi  Malhotra,  learned  counsel  for  the  tenant  

argued that the High Court was in error in setting aside the order of  

the Appellate Authority whereby matter was remanded to the Rent  

Controller for re-fixation of the provisional rent.   He would submit  

that the Appellate Authority after considering the bank statements  

submitted  by  the  tenant  held  that  the  landlord   had  concealed  

various payments which were tendered by the tenant.   He referred  

to the finding of the Appellate Authority  that the Rent Controller did  

not apply her mind while fixing the provisional rent and accepted the  

figures submitted by the landlord in a mechanical  manner without  

considering  the  particulars  of  payment   of  rent  furnished  by  the  

tenant.  He  argued   that  since  the  order  dated  June  11,  2009  

determining the provisional rent was patently illegal, the Appellate  

Authority  did  not  commit  any  error  in  upsetting  that  order  in  the  

appeal  preferred by the tenant.  

21. Dr.  Rajeev  Dhawan,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the  

landlord,  on the other hand, in support  of  the High Court’s order,  2 (2003) 11 SCC 397

10

made the following submissions :  (i) the  order  determining  

provisional  rent  is  a  foundational  order  and  not  an  interlocutory  

order;  such  order  could  have  been  challenged  in  appeal  under  

Section 15(1)(b) of the 1949 Rent Act within 15 days from the date  

of  passing  that  order  and  in  no  other  way;  (ii)  in  the  appeal  

challenging  the  eviction  order   dated  April  7,  2010,  the  order  

determining the provisional rent could not have been challenged and  

such challenge was not maintainable; (iii)  the only contention that  

was raised by the tenant before the Rent Controller was that he had  

invested huge amount of Rs. 58,98,370/- by raising loan from a bank  

and the said amount  was liable to be adjusted in the arrears of rent;  

there was no contention raised about the payment of Rs. 37,00,950/-  

having been made towards  rent from April,  2007 to the landlord;  

and (iv) the whole conduct of the tenant had been to prolong the  

litigation  and  it  was  to  achieve  this  objective  that  the  tenant  

continued to make applications one after the other  before the Rent  

Controller which could not be legally maintained and were frivolous  

and without merit.

22. One thing needs to be noticed immediately  that besides  

the specific averment made by the tenant in the written statement that  

11

he has paid  Rs. 37,00,950/- to the landlord towards rent from April  

2007 and no rent was due and payable by him, in his  affidavit dated  

June 6,  2009,  the tenant   gave the details  of  the payment of  Rs.  

37,00,950/-  having been made to the landlord from April, 2007. The  

affidavit  contains  the  cheque   numbers,  the  dates  on  which  such  

cheques  were  issued  and  the  amount  of  cheques.  Dr.  Rajeev  

Dhawan, learned senior counsel for the landlord did not dispute the  

receipt of the copy of the affidavit dated June 6, 2009 by the landlord  

on June 11, 2009 before the matter was heard and considered by the  

Rent Controller for determination of the provisional rent.  

23. Curiously, the order dated June 11, 2009,  whereby the  

provisional  rent  was determined by the Rent  Controller,   does not  

show any consideration of the affidavit dated June 6, 2009 filed by  

the tenant.  

24. The tenant was not satisfied with the order dated June 11,  

2009 since the Rent Controller failed to consider the amount of Rs.  

37,00,950/- which he claimed to have paid to the landlord towards  

rent  for  the  period  from  April,  2007  and,  therefore,  he  made  an  

application on September 7, 2009 for recalling the order dated June  

12

11, 2009.  This application was decided on April 7, 2010 and by the  

same order, the eviction order was passed against the tenant.  

25. Section  15(1)(b)  of  the  1949  Rent  Act  provides,   to  a  

person  aggrieved  by  an  order  passed  by  the  Rent  Controller,   a  

remedy of  appeal.  The Section  provides for  limitation  for  filing  an  

appeal  from that  order  and  also  the  forum to  which  such  appeal  

would lie. The provision, for maintaining the appeal,  does not make  

any difference between the final order and interlocutory order passed  

by the Rent Controller in the proceedings under the 1949 Rent Act.  

There is no specific provision  in the Section  that if a party aggrieved  

by an  interlocutory  order  passed  by  the  Rent  Controller  does  not  

challenge  that  order  in  appeal  immediately,  though  provided,  and  

waits for the final outcome, whether in the appeal  challenging the  

final order of  the Rent Controller, the correctness of the interlocutory  

order from which  an appeal lay could or could not  be challenged in  

the appeal from the final order.  

26. The observations made by the Privy Council more than a  

century and five decades back in  Maharajah Moheshur Sing v.  The  

Bengal Government3 deserve to be recapitulated. The Privy Council  

stated: 3 (1859) 7 Moore’s Indian Appeals 283

13

“………We  are  not  aware  of  any  law  or  Regulation  prevailing  in  India  which  renders  it  imperative  upon  the  suitor to appeal from every interlocutory Order by which he  may conceive himself aggrieved, under the penalty, if  he  does  not  so  do,  of  forfeiting  for  ever  the  benefit  of  the  consideration  of  the  appellate  Court.  No  authority  or  precedent has been cited in support of such a proposition,  and  we  cannot  conceive  that  anything  would  be  more  detrimental to the expeditious administration of Justice than  the establishment of a rule which would impose upon the  suitor the necessity of so appealing; whereby on the one  hand  he  might  be  harassed  with  endless  expense  and  delay,  and on the other inflict  upon his opponent similar  calamities. We believe there have been very many cases  before this Tribunal in which their Lordships have deemed  it to be their duty to correct erroneous interlocutory Orders,  though  not  brought  under  their  consideration  until  the  whole  cause  had  been  decided,  and  brought  hither  by  appeal for adjudication.”   

27. It is appropriate that some of the provisions of the Code of  

Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘Code’) are noticed for consideration  

of the question raised before us.  Sections 97, 104 and 105 of the  

Code read as under :  

“97.  Appeal  from final  decree  where  no  appeal   from  preliminary  decree.  –  Where  any  party  aggrieved  by  a  preliminary decree passed after the commencement of this  Code  does  not  appeal  from  such  decree,  he  shall  be  precluded from disputing its correctness in any appeal which  may be preferred from the final decree.  

104. Orders from which appeal lies. – (1) An appeal shall  lie  from  the  following  orders,  and  save  as  otherwise  expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any law for  the time being in force, from no other orders:-   (ff) an order under section 35A;

14

 (ffa) an order under section 91 or section 92 refusing leave  to institute a suit of the nature referred to in section 91 or  section 92, as the case may be;   (g) an order under section 95;   (h)  an  order  under  any  of  the  provisions  of  this  Code  imposing a fine or directing the arrest or detention in the civil  prison of any person except where such arrest or detention  is in execution of a decree;   (i) any order made under rules from which an appeal is  expressly allowed by rules;   Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order specified  in clause (ff) save on the ground that no order, or an order  for the payment of a less amount, ought to have been made.   (2)  No  appeal  shall  lie  from any  order  passed  in  appeal  under this section.   105.  Other  orders.  –  (1)  Save  as  otherwise  expressly  provided, no appeal shall lie from any order made by a Court  in  the  exercise  of  its  original  or  appellate  jurisdiction;  but  where  a  decree  is  appealed  from,  any  error,  defect  or  irregularity in any order, affecting the decision of the case,  may  be  set  forth  as  a  ground  of  objection  in  the  memorandum of appeal.   (2)  Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  sub-section  (1),  where  any  party  aggrieved  by  an  order  of  remand  from  which  an appeal  lies  does not  appeal  therefrom,  he shall  thereafter be precluded from disputing its correctness.”

28. The Calcutta High Court in Nanibala Dasi and Another v.  

Ichhamoyee Dasi and others4 was concerned with a question as to  

whether  the  challenge  to  preliminary  decree  in  a  suit  for  partition  

4 AIR 1925 Cal 218

15

could  be  made  in  a  case  where  the  final  decree  in  the  suit  had  

already been made by the Subordinate Judge and no appeal against  

the final decree was then or has at any time  been filed. The High  

Court referred to some of its earlier decisions, namely, Baikunta Nath  

Dey v.  Nawab Salimulla Bahadur5 ,  Mackenzie v.  Narsingh Sahai6 ,  

Khirodamoyi Dasi v. Adhar Chandra Ghose7, Sadhu Charan Dutta v.  

Haranath  Dutta8,  Kuloda  v.  Ramanand9 and held  that  the  right  of  

appeal from interlocutory order ceases  after disposal of the suit and  

that  rule  is  equally  applicable  to  suits  in  which  there  is  first  a  

preliminary decree and ultimately a final decree.

29. On the other hand, in Syed Ishak Syed Farid and another  

v.  Kunjbihari Singh Sirdhujasingh Kshatriya10,  the Division Bench of  

Nagpur High Court held as under :  

“The  contention  on  the  other  side  is  that  the  Legislature  has  conferred  a  right  of  appeal  against,  an  order refusing to extend time, and that an aggrieved party  must be afforded an opportunity of exercising the right so  conferred,  especially  as  there is  danger  of  it  being held  hereafter that as the orders in question were appealable,  matters decided in them will be final in the absence of an  appeal, and that they cannot be re-agitated hereafter in an  appeal  against  the  final  decree.  The  learned  Counsel  urging this contention relied on the analogies of preliminary  

5 (1907) 6 C.L.J. 647 6 (1909) 36 Cal 762 7 (1912) 18 C.L.J. 321 8 (1914) 20 C.W.N. 231 9 A.I.R. 1921 Cal. 109 10 A.I.R. 1940 Nagpur 104

16

decrees and of orders of remand against a decision of a  trial Court on a preliminary point. S. 105(1), Civil P.C., is in  these terms:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  

A right of appeal is a valuable right, and we do not think  that the Legislature after conferring it in such express terms  in Section 104 would take it away by implication in a large  class of  cases in  the next  Section.  An enabling Section  which confers additional rights in certain cases cannot, we  think,  be read as taking away rights which have already  been expressly conferred, especially when they are such  valuable and cherished rights as those of appeal. We also  feel that if a right of appeal is once conferred, then in the  absence of anything curtailing it,  full  opportunity must be  afforded to an aggrieved party to exercise it.  If  he does  exercise it and succeed, then any subsequent proceedings  which militate against any rights he obtains in the appeal  fall to the ground.                         

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

when the law gives a person two remedies he is  entitled to avail himself of either of them unless  they are inconsistent.”    

     [Emphasis supplied by us]

30 The order passed by the Rent Controller determining the  

provisional rent in an eviction petition based  on the ground of default  

in a situation where the tenant fails to comply with that order may be  

a  foundational  order  for  an  order  of  eviction  that  follows  but  

nevertheless such order is an interlocutory order as that order does  

17

not  determine  the  principal  matter  finally;  it  is  only  the  order  on  

subordinate matter with which it deals.      

31. Section 15(1)(b) of 1949 Rent Act provides that a person  

aggrieved  by  an  order  passed  by  the  Rent  Controller  may  prefer  

appeal to the Appellate Authority within the time prescribed therein; it  

does not say that if any aggrieved person by an interlocutory order  

passed by the Rent Controller from which an appeal lies does not  

appeal therefrom, he shall thereafter be precluded from disputing its  

correctness.  There is no provision in Section 15(1)(b), a provision  

like Section 105 (2) and Section 97 of the Code.   

32. 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(1)(b)  does not  make it   imperative  upon  the  person  

aggrieved  to  appeal  from  an  interlocutory  order  and, if  he does  

not do so, his right  gets forfeited  when he  challenges  the final  

order.   

33. It is true  that  an  order  of  eviction follows  as a matter of  

course  if  there  is  non-compliance  of  the  order  determining  the  

18

provisional rent but when tenant challenges  the order of eviction  and  

therein 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 correctness of such provisional order when put in  

issue.

34. In view of the above legal position, we shall now advert  

to the facts of  the present  case.   The tenant  at  the first  available  

opportunity  i.e.,  in  his   written  statement   filed  on  April  24,  2009  

averred that he has been paying the rent to the landlord by cheques  

and from April 1, 2007,  he has paid  rent of Rs. 37,00,950/-  to the  

landlord.   As  a matter of fact,  the tenant by his counter claim prayed  

for refund of the excess payment made to the landlord.  Then he filed  

his  affidavit  dated  June  6,  2009  setting  out  the  details  of  the  

payments made towards rent from April, 2007.

35. The landlord  relied upon  his ledger account to show that  

the  tenant  was  in  arrears  of  rent.   According  to  the  landlord,  he  

received the payment as under:-  

          Date Debit Credit

19

9.4.2007 173643.75p - 26.4.2007 - 163250 26.4.2007 - 10000 9.5.2007 173643.75p - 9.6.2007 173643.75p - 9.7.2007 173643.75p - 18.7.2007 - 163250 18.7.2007 - 10000 9.8.2007 182325.94p - 9.9.2007 182325.94p - 27.9.2007 - 10000 28.9.2007 - 163250 9.10.2007 182325.94p - 27.10.2007 - 10000 8.11.2007 - 171900 8.11.2007 - 10000 9.11.2007 182325.94 - 1.12.2007 - 163250 3.12.2007 - 10000 9.12.2007 182325.94 - 10.12.2007 - 10000 11.12.2007 - 171900 9.1.2008 182325.94p - 9.2.2008 182325.94p - 9.3.2008 182325.94p - 9.3.2008 182325.94p - 1.4.2008 - Opening  

Balance 450000  (security amt.)

15.4.2008 - 528400 15.4.2008 450000 (amount  

given through  Cheque)

-

9.5.2008 182325.94p - 13.5.2008 - 181900 9.6.2008 182325.94p - 12.6.2008 202900 (amount  

given through  Cheque)

-

12.6.2008 350000 (amount -

20

given through  Cheque

12.6.2008 450000 (amount  given through  Cheque)

-

9.7.2008 182325.94p - 9.8.2008 150000 - 9.9.2008 150000 - 9.10.2008 150000   21.8.2008 - 40000 22.8.2008 - 60000 9.11.2008 150000 - Total 49,35,386-28 24,99,000/-        

36. On the other hand, the tenant in his affidavit dated June  

6,  2009  gave  the  details  of  the  payments  made  to  the  landlord  

towards rent from the month of April, 2007 as under :

Cheque  No.

“Dated for Rs.

i) 011862 30.3.2007 1,63,250.00 ii) 011861 30.3.2007    10,000.00 iii) 011863 25.4.2007 1,63,250.00 iv) 011864 25.4.2007    10,000.00 v) 011868 16.7.2007 1,63,250.00 vi) 011867 16.7.2007    10,000.00 vii) 011885 24.9.2007    10,000.00 viii) 011886 24.9.2007 1,63,250.00 ix) 011887 25.10.2007 1,71,900.00 x) 011888 25.10.2007    10,000.00 xi) 011889 6.11.2007 1,71,900.00 xii) 011890 6.11.2007    10,000.00 xiii) 011892 30.11.2007 1,63,250.00 xiv) 011893 3.11.2007    10,000.00 xv) 011894 5.12.2007    10,000.00 xvi) 011895 5.12.2007 1,71,900.00

21

xvii) 4789 11.4.2008 5,28,400.00 xviii) 4790 18.4.2008 5,45,700.00 xix) 4791 10.5.2008 1,81,900.00 xx) 4794 12.6.2008 2,75,000.00 xxi) 4795 12.6.2008 3,25,000.00 xxii) 4796 13.6.2008 4,00,000.00 xxiii) 4797 13.6.2008 1,80,000.00 xxiv) 116150 20.8.2008    60,000.00 xxv) 116151 20.8.2008    40,000.00 xxvi) 116152 20.8.2008    50,000.00

Total           Rs. 37,00,950.00

37. The  Rent  Controller,  apparently,   did  not  consider  the  

statement  given  by  the  tenant  at  all  and  relied  upon  the  ledger  

account submitted by the landlord and in his order dated June 11,  

2009 held that an amount of   Rs. 27,84,875.04 was due and payable  

by the tenant towards the arrears of rent.   Since the Rent Controller  

failed to even consider the statement of  payment  tendered by the  

tenant, the tenant made an application for recall of the order dated  

June 11,  2009.   The Rent  Controller  dismissed the application for  

recall and two other applications made by the tenant by a common  

order and also  passed an order for eviction of the tenant on April 7,  

2010 as the tenant failed to comply with the order dated June 11,  

2009 determining the provisional rent.  

22

38. The tenant challenged the order dated April 7, 2010 and  

also  the  order  dated  June  11,  2009  in  appeal.   The  Appellate  

Authority  considered the material that was available before the Rent  

Controller for determination of rent, particularly, the two statements,  

one  filed  by  the  landlord  and  the  other  by  the  tenant,  and  on  

comparison  thereof  found  that  the  entire  payments  made  by  the  

tenant have not been reflected in the ledger  account submitted by  

the landlord.  This is what the Appellate  Authority observed :

“Thus, it is apparent that the entire payments made  by  the  respondent/tenant  are  not  reflected  in  the  account  books  of  the  respondent/landlord.  The  appellant/tenant has also raised a plea that he had  made  the  payment  of  Rs.  2,75,000/-  to  the  respondent, vide cheque No. 4794 dated 12.6.2008,  Rs.  3,25,000/-  vide  cheque  No.  4795  dated  12.6.2008,  Rs.  4,00,000/-  vide  cheque  No.  4796  dated 12.6.2008 and Rs. 1,80,000/- vide cheque No.  4797 dated 12.6.2008.  The said cheques were the  bearer cheques and were allegedly got encashed by  the Manager of the respondent.  However, this Court  need  not  enter  into  the  controversy  as  to  if  the  payment of the bearer cheques, was received by the  respondent/landlord or not as it would be for the Ld.  Rent Controller to consider this question.  However,  the assessment order dated  11.6.2009 passed by  the  Ld.  Rent  Controller  is  patently  illegal  and  erroneous.  From the perusal of the said order, it is  made out that Ld. Rent Controller did not apply his  mind  and  accepted  the  figures  mentioned  by  the  respondent/landlord  in  the  rejoinder  in  the  mechanical manner.  The Ld. Rent Controller has not  

23

mentioned  anything  that  as  to  how the  amount  of  about  Rs.  14,52,900/-  paid  by  the  respondent/landlord to the tenant was being treated  as  arrears  of  rent.    The  Ld.  counsel   for  the  respondent could be claimed as arrears of rent [sic].  He tried to wriggle out of the situation by submitting  that the tenant had agreed to repay the said amount  with  the  rent.   However,  even  on  this  the  said  amount  could  not  be  treated  as  arrears  of  rent.  Moreover, the amount of Rs. 5,45,700/- which was  received by the respondent/landlord from the tenant  even as per the statement of account pertaining to  the  bank  account  of  the  respondent  was  not  adjusted.  The Ld. Rent Controller did not consider  these aspects of the case at all.”  

39. The Appellate Authority held that the order dated June 11,  

2009 was patently illegal;  the tenant was called upon to tender  much  

more  amount  than  was  actually  due  as  arrears  of  rent  and,  

accordingly, by its order dated June 10, 2010 set aside the orders  

dated April 7, 2010 and June 11, 2009  and remanded the matter to  

the Rent Controller with a direction to pass fresh order of provisional  

assessment of arrears of rent, interest and costs of the proceedings  

as contemplated by Section 13(2)(i) proviso of the 1949 Rent Act.  

40. The  High  Court,  however,  held  that  as  tenant  did  not  

avail  of  his  remedy  to  challenge  the  order  fixing  provisional  rent  

during the period between the date of the order and date fixed for  

payment, the Appellate Authority  could not have gone into the merits  

24

of such  determination and, accordingly, set aside the order of the  

Appellate Authority.    In our view, the High Court fell into grave error  

in what it held.   The legal position, in our opinion, is this:  Where a  

tenant does not challenge the order of the fixation of provisional rent  

passed  under  Section  13(2)(i)  proviso  in  appeal  under  Section  

15(1)(b) and also fails to comply  with that order,  the order of eviction  

must follow as per the provisions contained in the 1949 Rent Act  but  

when the tenant challenges the order of eviction in appeal and therein  

also challenges the order determining the provisional rent, it  is not  

open to the Appellate Authority to refuse to consider the legality and  

validity of the order determining the provisional rent on the ground  

that the correctness of such order cannot be examined as no appeal  

was filed from that order though an appeal lay therefrom.  

41. On the facts of the present case, the Appellate Authority  

did  not  commit  any  error  in  calling  upon  the  Rent  Controller  to  

determine  the  arrears  of  rent,   interest  and  costs  afresh  as  the  

tenant’s statement of payments towards rent from April, 2007 was not  

at all referred to and  considered  by the Rent Controller.   If the order  

of the High Court is allowed to stand, it would occasion in manifest  

injustice and result in miscarriage of justice inasmuch as the tenant  

25

would be thrown out  of  the leased premises although he may not  

have been in arrears of rent.  In the circumstances, re-determination  

of  arrears  of  rent,  interest  and  costs  by  the  Rent  Controller,  as  

directed  by  the  Appellate  Authority,  would  subserve  the   ends  of  

justice.  If on re-determination, the tenant is found in arrears of rent  

and does not  deposit/pay the  amount  as  determined  by  the  Rent  

Controller in time, as may be directed, obviously he would suffer the  

order of eviction.  

42. In  the result,  the  appeal  is  allowed. The  order  dated  

September 23, 2010 passed by the High Court is set aside and the  

order dated June 10, 2010 passed by the Appellate Court,  S.A.S  

Nagar (Mohali) is restored. The parties shall bear their own costs.  

  …………………….J.            (Aftab Alam)

   .………………….. J.           (R.M. Lodha)  

NEW DELHI. MAY 13, 2011.   

26