Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.-
This revision petition is directed against the orders of both the Courts below by which the present petitioner has been ordered to vacate the demised premises (shop) which forms part of property No. 4-G, Municipal No. B-XX.4010, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana.
2. The landlord sought the eviction of the tenant on the ground of arrears of rent @ Rs. 900/- per month besides house tax w.e.f. 01.09.1997. The Rent Controller, vide order dated 27.04.2004, assessed the provisional rent which was ordered to be paid on 22.05.2004. The order dated 27.04.2004 was challenged by the tenant by way of CR-2490-2004 in which interim order was passed on 14.05.2004 giving liberty to the tenant to tender the rent w.e.f. March, 2001 upto 30th April, 2003 @ Rs. 900/- per month. The tenant accordingly tendered the rent of that period amounting to Rs. 29,070/-. During the pendency of CR-2490- 2004, the landlord filed an application on 27.07.2004 for passing the order of eviction against the tenant for non-compliance of the order of provisional assessment of rent. However, the CR-2490-2004 was dismissed by this Court on 15.09.2004 and order of stay dated 14.05.2004 was vacated. The tenant also moved an application before the learned Rent Controller for quantifying the amount of rent as according to him the order dated 27.04.2004 did not indicate the exact amount. The said application was not accepted by the learned Rent Controller vide its order dated 04.03.2005 on the ground that the rent has already been assessed. The said order was not challenged by way of revision, however, it is submitted by learned counsel for the tenant that it has been challenged in appeal before the learned Appellate Authority. Thereafter, an application was moved on 20.04.2005 for depositing an amount of Rs. 51,000/- as the rent from 01.09.1997 to 28.02.2001 @ Rs. 900/- per month including house tax of Rs. 5,670/- and interest of Rs. 7,340/-. On 21.04.2005, the amount of Rs. 51,000/- was deposited by the tenant in the government treasury.
3. The tenant then filed an application on 15.03.2006 alleging therein that he is suo moto ready to deposit part of the amount which was initially stayed by this Court by making his own assessment, without seeking indulgence of the Rent Controller.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant has submitted that the amount of rent was not quantified by the learned Rent Controller in accordance with law because the interest component is not adjudged. He has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan v. M/s. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, 2002(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 514 to contend that the first date of hearing would mean the date falling after the provisional order of Rent Controller and since the rent was not quantified by the learned Rent Controller in accordance with law as the interest component was not adjudged, the learned Courts below have committed an error of law in allowing the application for eviction.
5. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord has submitted that after the provisional assessment of rent on 27.04.2004, the tenant had availed his remedy of filing Civil Revision in this Court in which he was asked to tender the rent from March, 2001 to 30.04.2003 @ Rs. 900/- per month and tender of the remaining rent was stayed. The said Civil Revision, however, was dismissed on 15.09.2004 and the order of stay dated 14.05.2004 was vacated. The tenant was then liable to make the payment of rent immediately or should have made a prayer before this Court for extension of time to make the payment of provisionally assessed rent within some period but no such step was taken, rather a frivolous application was filed for quantifying the rent which was dismissed on 04.03.2005, which again was not challenged by way of revision and an application was filed after a long time on 20.04.2005 to deposit the remaining amount of rent in terms of the order of the learned Rent Controller. He further submitted that the tenant has adopted a novel method of tendering the rent suo motu at his own convenience which is not the spirit of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Rajan alias Raj Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar, 2010(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 386 : 2010(2) PLR 201 or the law.
6. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
7. The question that emerges from the facts and circumstances narrated here-in-above is as to "whether a tenant can seek to tender the provisionally assessed rent after a long time even though his revision petition against the order of provisional assessment of rent, in which stay is granted, is dismissed and the stay granted is vacated ?"
8. In my view, after the assessment of the provisional rent by the learned Rent Controller on 27.04.2004, which was assailed by way of revision before this Court in which the interim stay was granted and the tenant was permitted to tender the rent of a specific period, the tenant was obliged to seek permission of the revisional Court at the time when the stay was vacated and the revision petition was dismissed, for the purpose of tendering the remaining amount of provisionally assessed rent to escape from the ratio of law in the case of Rajan alias Raj Kumar's case (supra) in which it has been held that if the tenant does not deposit the provisionally assessed rent on the stipulated date, which falls on the first date of hearing, without sufficient reason, then he is liable to be evicted and no other order is required to be passed. A tenant cannot play hide and seek with the Court. Once the interim protection granted in the revision is taken away, he should have either deposited the provisional rent immediately or should have taken permission of the Court for a date to be fixed before the learned Rent Controller for deposit of rent or should have challenged the order of the High Court before the Supreme Court and obtained the stay. In the absence of aforesaid circumstances, the tenant does not deserve to be protected. Hence, the revision petition is without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.
No costs.
Petition dismissed.