R.L. Anand, J.

1. This is a landlords revision filed by Badri Parshad and others and it has been directed against the judgment dated 19.11.1982 passed by the Appellate Authority, under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (hereinafter referred to as the), Hissar, who dismissed the appeal of the petitioners by affirming the order dated 26.3.1981 passed by the Rent Controller, Hissar, who dismissed the ejectment petition of the landlords under Section 13 of the.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the demised premises is a shop bearing No. 351 situated outside Delhi Gate, as described in the head-note of the petition. An ejectment application was filed by Badri Parshad and Lakshmi Narain alleging that respondent Sham Lal was inducted as a tenant iti the demised premises on a monthly rental of Rs. 150/- besides house-tax and that the tenant is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 21.4.1974 till the date of filing of the ejectment application. The landlords also sought the ejectment of the tenant on the ground of subletting by stating that a portion of the shop had been sublet to respondents No. 2 and 3, who were arrayed as respondents in the trial Court but subsequently the ground of subletting was given up during the pendency of the main ejectment petition and respondents No. 2 and 3 were also given up by the learned counsel for the landlords appearing in the trial Court. Re-sultantly, the only ground pressed by the landlords was non-payment of arrears of rent.

3. Notice of the application was given to the tenant, who contested the averments of the ejectment application by alleging that the monthly rent of the shop in dispute was Rs. 95.10, which amount had been paid by him and in these circumstances he is not liable to be evicted from the demised premises on the ground of non-payment of rent.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues :-

"1. Whether the tender is invalid, if so, to what effect

2. Relief."

5. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the application holding that the tender is valid. Similarly the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal of the landlords for the following reasons as given in paras 7 to 11 of the impugned judgment dated 19.11.1982:-

"7. The only point, which has been pressed into service in the present appeal is, as to whether, the tender is question is a valid one or not. This matter was dealt with by the trial court under Issue No. 1. Before legal position is examined, certain facts, which are praclically admitted, may be briefly referred to. It is the admitted case of both the sides that in response to a notice issued by the Rent Controller, the respondent Sham Lal put in appearance along with Sh. P.D. Chaudhary Advocate on 14.2.1978 before S.D.O. (Civil) who was then exercising the powers of Rent Controller. It is not in dispute that the second ground of ejectment, namely, subletting, was given up by the present appellants when Shri M.P. Aggarwal, Advocate, representing them, made a statement giving up respondents Nos. 2 and 3 as sub-tenants. It is also not in dispute that no arrears of rent was tendered by the tenant Sham Lal by the said date nor any order was passed by the Rent Controller for determining the costs of the proceedings and interest due on the arrears of rent. Shri P.D. Chaudhry, Advocate, representing Sham Lal respondent, made a statemenl before the Rent Controller, on the said date that the proceeding in the case had been stayed and, therefore, at his request, the case was adjourned for 28.2.1978 for placing on the record the said order of the Honble High Court. On the said date also, the respondent Sham Lal did not produce any stay order nor did he lenderany arrears of rent after getting the interest and costs assessed by the Rent Controller and instead, it was brought to the noiice of the Rent Controller that, as per information received by them from their counsel, the proceedings have already been stayed and on the said representation, a detailed order was passed by the learned Rent Controller on 28.2.1978 stating therein that the respondent Sham Lal neither tendered the arrears of rent nor produced the stay order of the Honble High Court had rather stated that he did not want to tender the rent and, therefore, the respondent would be responsible for dire consequences and at the request of the respondent, the case was again fixed for 31.3.1978. On the aforesaid date, a copy of the stay order of the Honble High Court was produced, which clearly showed that the proceedings in this case were stayed by the Honble High Court on 29.5.1977 and consequently on the petition moved by the appellants, the proceedings which were consigned to the record-room, were revived on 17.10.1979 and notice was given to the tenant and thereafter the proceedings were restored and it was on 13.12.1979 that costs of the proceedings were assessed, as well as interest due on the arrears of rent, which amount was tendered by the tenant on 24.12.1979 and accepted under protest by the landlords and, accordingly, the case was adjourned to 16.1.1980 for filing written statement.

8. Keeping the above back-ground in my mind, I would now assess the validity of the submissions made before me by learned counsel for both the sides. On behalf of the appellants, Sarvshri M.P. Aggarwal and Sham Lal Sardana submit that the tender is not a valid one, inasmuch as the first date of hearing in the present case was 14.2.1978, when the respondent Sham Lal along with his counsel pul in appearance before S.D.O. (Civil)-cum-Rent Controller and the period of limitation of 15 days would start from that date and it ended on 25.2.1978 and thereafter, it reslarted on 23.11.1979 when the respondent Sham Lal again appeared after the landlords moved for restoration of the eviction petition and since the amount was not tendered even on that day, and instead, was tendered on 24.12.1979, the same was not a valid one. Alternatively, it was argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that even if the first date of hearing is treated as the date, when the respondent Sham Lal put in appearance in response to the notice having been served on him on 14.2.1978, the period of limitation of 15 days started running and ended on 24.2.1978 and in this way, the tenant availed of 10 days concession and, therefore, he was bound to tender the arrears of rent within 6 days more in order to save himself from an order of eviction and in that situation, the tenant was bound to pay the arrears of rent within 6 days from 13.12.1979, on which date, proceedings was restored and as admittedly, the arrears as of rent was not tendered within the period specified above and instead, tendered on 24.12.1979, the tender was invalid and the.contrary view taken by the learned Rent Controller is incorrect, it was then submitted by the learned counsel representing the appellants that even if the rent Controller did not assess the costs of the proceedings or the interest due on the arrears of rent as provided by proviso to section I3(2)(i) of the Haryana urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, even then the tenant was bound to tender the arrears of rent at least within 15 days and in case, he failed to do so, he is liable to suffer an order of eviction in view of the law laid down in the latest two reported decisions Mohan Singh v. Dina Nath, 1982(1) RCR 343 and Gurdev Singh v. Surinder Kumar others, 1982(1) RCR 451, wherein, it has been held that the tenant is duty-bound to deposit the arrears of rent within 15 days of the first hearing in order to save eviction, though costs of the proceedings and interest had not been calculated by the learned Rent Controller. Reliance was placed on another reported decision of our own High Court Ram Sarup Ashok Kumar v. Inderjit Knur, 1980(2) RCR 2 in support of their contention that in case, the tenant does not evince his desire to make payment before the learned Rent Controller on the first date of hearing, he has to suffer an order of eviction, despite the fact that the costs of the proceedings and interest due on the arrears of rent has not been determined by the Court. The learned counsel for the appeliants also relied on another reported decision Mela Ram and others v. Kundan Lal, 1961 Punjab Law Reporter 451 at page 452 in support of his contention that the first date of hearing is the date, when the respondent appears.

9. I have given my serious thought to the aforesaid contentions raised before me by the learned counsel for the appellants and to my mind, the aforesaid submissions are without any substance. This case has a chequered history. Initially, the contractual rate of rent was Rs. 150/- per month. Subsequently, a petition was moved by Sham Lal tenant u/s 4 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act for fixation of fair rent. The learned Rent Controller took cognizance of the matter and fixed and fair rent of the demised premises at the rate of Rs. 95.62 per month. It is also not in dispute that the appeal preferred by the landlord against the order of Rent Controller was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Hissar, much before the filing of the present petition of ejectment. It is also not in dispute that the landlords, feeling dissatisfied with the orders of both the Courts, preferred a revision petition in the Honble High Court, which was pending. It is further clear from the certified copy of the order of the Honble High Court dated 10.2.1978 Ex. A1 that some time earlier to it, Sham Lal moved a petition before the Honble High Court in those proceedings that the proceedings of the present case be stayed. It is further fortified from the aforesaid order that Shri V.K. Jain, Advocate, representing the appellant Badri Pershad prayed for a short adjournment with a view to enable him to file a reply to the application for stay and, therefore the case was adjourned to 17.2.1978. It is further clear that no stay order was issued on 10.2.1978 and the stay order was issued for the first time on 24.2.1978 and not on 14.2.1978, as argued by Sh. P.D. Chaudhry Advocate, representing the respondent Sham Lal, before the then Rent Controller. I have high-lighted the above facts with a view to stress my view-point that on the date, when the present petition for ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent was made by the landlord, the fair rent had already been fixed by the Rent Controller and even by the Appellate Authority and in that eventuality, in the fitness of things, it was incumbent on the part of the landlords to claim arrears of rent at the rate fixed by the Rent Controller and not at the contractual rate of rent of Rs. 150/-. It was observed by Honble Mr. Justice J.V. Gupta in Megh Chain! and Ors. v. Tilak Raj Girdhar, AIR 1982 Punjab and Haryana 144 at page 146 that if once it is held by the Court that the landlord is not coming with clean hands and has taken false pleas no order of,eject-ment can be passed in his favour, much less, a new case can be made out for him as was done by the Appellate Authority in that case. I do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the time for payment of arrears of rent would start running from 14.2.1978, when Sham Lal respondent put in appearance before the learned Rent Controller. I have stated so, because the tenant can tender arrears of rent any time within 15 days and limitation in such a case never starts. As discussed above, the appeal preferred by the landlords against the order of the Appellate Authority re- garding fixation of fair rent was dismissed by the Honble High Court on 25.9.1979. Thereafter, the landlords moved an application before the Rent Controller for restoration of the application in hand, regarding which, notice was given to the tenant, who put in appearance on 23.11.1979, when a copy of the application moved by the landlords for restoration was given to him for reply and consequently, the case was adjourned for 13.12.1979, on which date, the petition filed by the landlord was entertained and the original application was restored and thereafter the case was adjourned for 24.12.1979. It is also relevant to mention that on 13.12.1979 the learned Rent Controller determined the costs of the proceedings at Rs. 25/- and interest Rs. 1096.50. There is no dispute between the litigating parties that the amount determined by the Rent Controller along with arrears of rent was offered to the counsel for the landlord on 24.12.1979, which was accepted by him under protest. A resume of the above facts would show that the first date of hearing in the present case can be at the best as 13.12.1979 and the tender was made by the tenant within the prescribed period of 15 days. The authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant mentioned above, do not render any assistance to their clients because the tenant is not seeking protection, in the instant case regarding non-determining of costs of proceedings and interest due on arrears of rent, but instead, his allegation is that the first date of hearing in the instant case was 13.12.1979. when the learned Rent Controller applied his judicial mind to the facts of this case. The direct authority on the point in hand is a Division Bench decision of our own High Court of a reported case Mangut Rai v. Ved Parkash, 1969 PLR 472 : 1969 RCR 96. It has been held in the aforesaid authority that in order to constitute first hearing within the meaning of section 13(2)(i) proviso to the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act the following pre-requisites must co-exist :-

1. There should be a hearing which presupposes the existence of an occasion enabling the parties to be heard and the Court to hear them in respect of the cause.

2. Such hearing should be first in point of time after due service of the summons on the tenant. Both the essentials are positive and in the absence of either of them, there can no first hearing.

10. In the aforesaid authorities, it was further observed by their Lordships that there is long array of judicial authorities in support of the proposition that the first hearing commences, when the Court looks into the pleadings in order to formulate the points in controversy between the parties and in case, where no issues are to be settled, the first hearing will be the date, on which the court applies its mind to the case for the purpose of the trial. A similar view has been taken by a Single Bench decision of our own High Court Faquir Chand v. Rant Chand, 1971 CLR 235 and also Ram Nath v. Glrdhari Lal etc., 1959 PR 77. I do not attach much importance to the arguments, of the learned counsel for the appellants that there was any misrepresentation on the part of the counsel, representing the tenant regarding stay of the proceedings on 14.2.1978, in view of the fact that admittedly an application already had been moved by the tenant in the Honble High Court, praying therein that the proceedings in the present cases be stayed inasmuch as the amount of arrears of rent is alone in dispute.

11. The sum and substance ofthe above discussion is that the arrears of rent alongwith costs of the proceedings and interest due on the arrears of rent was tendered by the tenant Sham Lal within the prescribed period of 15 days and thus has saved himself from suffering an order of eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent. The view adopted by tlje trial Court in this regard is correct and is hereby affirmed."

6. Still not satisfied, the present revision by the landlords.

7. I have heard Mr. M.L. Sarin, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Sweena Pannu, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent.

8. Even after hearing the exparte arguments ofthe learned senior counsel for the petitioners, I am ofthe opinion that this revision is totally devoid of any merit.

9. In this case some dates will be relevant which I will deal in the subsequent portion of this judgment, When the ejectment application was filed before the Rent Controller, notice was issued to the respondent-tenant, who gave his appearance along with his counsel Mr. P.D. Chaudhary, on 14.2.1978. On that date no arrears of rent was tendered by the tenant nor the Rent Controller assessed the costs of the proceedings. Similarly, he also did not calculate the interest nor he called upon the tenant to tender the rent, costs or interest. On the contrary, the counsel for the respondent-tenant made a statement before the Rent Controller that since the proceedings had been stayed, therefore, the case may be adjourned. Resultantly, on the request made by the learned counsel for the respondent the case was adjourned to 28.2.1978 for placing on record the order passed by the High Court. What was the necessity of making the statement, I may also narrate here because the tenant filed an application for fixation of fair rent which was allowed and the rent was reduced to Rs. 95.62 per month. The landlords filed an appeal wHich was also dismissed. The landlords then filed a revision which was pending in the High Court. With that background the tenant made a representation before the Rent Controller on 14.2.1978 that the proceedings in the present ejectment application may be stayed in view of the order passed by the High Court and the Rent Controller directed the tenant to produce the stay order. Resultantly, the case was adjourned to 28.2.1978. On that date the tenant did not produce the stay order nor he tendered any arrears of rent after getting the costs and interest assessed by the Rent Controller. It was reiterated by the tenant that the proceedings had already been stayed by the High Court. The case was fixed for 31.3.1978. On that day the tenant produced the order of the High Court showing that the proceedings of the ejectment petition were stayed by the High Court on 24.2.1978 and not on 14.2.1978. Finally the revision filed by the landlords was dismissed on 29.5.! 979. After the dismissal of the revision of the landlords, they filed an application for revival of the ejectment proceedings. Notice of the application was given to the tenant and finally those proceedings were reviewed on 13.12.1979. On that day the costs of the proceedings were assessed and the interest was calculated. The tenant then tendered the arrears of rent on 24.12.1979 which was accepted by the landlords under protest and accordingly the case was adjourned to 16.1.1980 for filing the written statement.

10. Now the point which survives for determination is whether the tender made by the tenant on 14.12.1979 is valid or not. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the tenant has not made a valid tender as required under the law and it was too late on the part of the tenant when he made a tender on 24.12.1979, whereas this tender ought to have been made by the tenant on 14.2.1978 or within 15 days starting from 14.2.1979, meaning thereby up to 1.3.1978. The learned senior counsel submitted that once the period of limitation starts, it cannot he stopped. It is has been stopped by the High Court by issuing the stay order vide which the ejectment proceedings were stayed, it was so stopped on 14.2.1978 and by thattime thetenant had already consumed 10 days and he could only save his eviction by taking the benefit of 5 days only and 5 days should start when finally the revision filed by the landlords in the High Court was dismissed/disposed of on 29.5.1979. In other words, the tenant could make the tender after making a request to the Rent Controller to assess the costs and interest up to4.6.1979. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon a judgment of this Court Meja Singh v. Karam Singh, 1981 CLJ 220 : 1981(2) RCR 469 (P&H) and my attention has also been invited to the judgment passed by me in Mehar Chand v. Ramesh Chand, 1999(2) RCR 269 (P&II).

11. I have considered the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and in my opinion these are totally devoid of merit and the judgments relied upon are also not helpful. Rather, these judgments go against the petitioners. Seclion 13(2)(i) of the lays down that "A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller, for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller, aftergiving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application, is satisfied that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due from 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 within a period of fifteen days of the first hearing of the application for ejectment after due service, pays or tenders the arrears of rent and interest, to be calculated by the Controller, at eight per centum per annum on such arrears together with such costs of the application, if any, as may be allowed by the Controller, the tenant shall be deemed to have duly paid or tendered the rent within the time, aforesaid; Provided further that the landlord shall not be entitled to claim arrears of rent for a period exceeding three years immediately preceding the date of application under the provisions of this Act."

12. Thus we have to see what is the first date of hearing in the ejectment application filed by the landlords and what are the duties of the Rent Controller within the meaning of the proviso. The first date of hearing is when the Rent Controller applies his mind to the facts of the case. The reading of the proviso would further show that a duty has been cast upon the Rent Controller to calculate arrears of rent and interest @ 8% per annum and further a duty has been cast upon the Rent Controller under this Act to assess the costs of the application, ifany. The legislature has added this proviso with a purpose and I may also state here that the language of the Haryana Act is at variance with the language of the Punjab Act where no such statutory duty has been cast upon the Rent Controller to calculate the arrears, interest and costs, as stated above. Therefore, the tenant takes the risk of calculating his interest. In the Punjab Act the Rent Controller is only supposed to assess the costs. When the notice of the ejectment application was given to the tenant and when the tenant appeared before the Rent Controller on 14.2.1978, it was obligatory on the part of the Rent Controller to bring to the notice of the tenant that he is in arreared of rent to particular amount. Besides that, interest. @ 8% per annum comes to a specified amount and further the Rent Controller was supposed to assess the costs to be paid by the tenant. Nothing had been done on that day. On that day the proceedings were adjourned on the representation of the tenant that the proceedings had been stayed by the High Court though no stay order seas even passed by the High Court. In these circumstances, it cannot be held that 14.2.1978 was the first date of hearing. Assuming for the sake of argument that the tenant made a false representation to the Rent Controller on 14.2.1978 that the stay has been granted by the High Court, still the landlords case is not improved. It would mean that 14.2.1978 will be considered as first date of hearing. If 14 days are to be added to 14.2.1978, it gives the right to the tenant to save his eviction if lie tenders the arrears of rent, interest and costs after taking the permission of the Rent Controller up to 1.3.1978. Admittedly, the proceedings were stayed by the High Court on 24.2.1978. Thereafter the proceedings were adjourned sine die for awaiting the orders of the High Court. The cause of action, ifany, which arose to the landlords on 14.2.1978 has been interrupted by the High Court on 24.2.1978 as a result of which the tenant was deprived the right to tender tire arrears of rent upto 1.3.1978.

13. Now it is to be seen when the tenant again got the right to tender the arrears of rent, it is the common case of the parties that the revision filed by the landlords was finally decided/disposed of by the High Court on 29.5.1979. Thereafter the landlords filed the application for revival of proceedings which were consigned to the record room. The file was requisitioned on 17.10.1979. Thereafter the Rent Controller gave notice to the tenant and finally the proceedings were restored on 13.12.1979. On that day, for the first time, the costs of the proceedings was assessed as well as the interest due on the arrears of rent was assessed by the Rent Controller. If 15 days are to be added from 13.12.1979, the tenant could make the tender up to 28.12.1979. But in the present case the amount was tendered by the tenant on 14.12.1979 which was accepted by the landlords under protest and thereafter the case was adjourned to 16.1.1980. The grouse of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the tenant has taken dual advantage. Firstly, he did not tender the rent within 15 days starting from 14.2.1978. Rather, he made a misrepresentation before the Rent Controller that the proceedings had been stayed by the High Court though the same were stayed on 24.2.1978. It is true that the application was moved by the tenant before the High Court even prior to 14.2.1978, but on that date no stay order was granted. It was actually granted on 24.12.1978. The provisions of the are beneficial to the tenant. What is the fault of the tenant if the proceedings have been stayed by the High Court on 24.2.1978 Irrespective of the fact that a representation was made by the tenant on 14.2.1978 about the stay of the proceedings, it was obligatory upon the Rent Controller to assess the costs and interest. It has not been done. Thereafter the proceedings were stayed on 24.2.1978. The moment proceedings were stayed, it was not open to the tenant to tender the rent which he otherwise could tender upto 1.3.1978, if we calculate the limitation from 14.2.1978, on which date the tenant immediately made a request to the Rent Controller to assess the costs and interest. It was so done giving a fresh lease of life to the tenant to tender the rent up to 28.12.1979. In the present case the tender was admittedly made on 24.12.1979, within 15 days which was calculated from 13.12.1979. Thus I am of the opinion that there was no default on the part of the tenant and the tender made.on 24.12.1979 was a good tender. The first date of hearing in this case will be considered as 13.12.1979 when the Rent Controller applied his mind to the proceedings and started determining the costs and interest.

In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this revision and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.

14. Revision dismissed.