1. An order of eviction passed against the tenant under S. 13(2)(i) eviction passed against the tenant under S. 13(2)(I) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground of non-payment of rent, is to be treated as void and without jurisdiction merely for the reason that it was passed before the expiry of 15 days from the first date of hearing. This was the point canvassed in the revision here while seeking to challenge the impugned order of the executing court dismissing the objection petition filed by the tenant Smt. Chawali. Invalidity was also sought to be attributed to the said order of eviction on the additional ground that it had been passed before interest and costs on such arrears of rent had been assessed by the Rent Controller. The contentions raised are indeed wholly untenable when considered in the content of the circumstances in which the order of eviction came to be passed.
2. The petitioners occupied the premises in question as a tenant at a rent of Rs. 13.28 P.m. An application seeking her eviction on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent was filed on April 2, 1979. the first date on which the petitioners appeared before the Rent Controller in these proceed was may 8, 1979, when the case was adjourned to May 11, 1979. It was next adjourned to may 19, 1979 on which date the petitioners made a statement which translated reads as under:--
'I admit the claim of Shri Behari Lal petitioners and a decree for ejectment may be passed against me. If I continue to pay arrears of rent for the previous two months and one current months which amounts to Rs. 40/.-by the 10th of each month or prior thereto then he will have no right to eject me from the house in dispute, but if I fail to pay rent as aforesaid during any month then Behari applicant shall have the right to take vacant possession from me and I shall not raise nay objection, I shall pay rent for one month only during the month, but in future I shall pay Rs. 40/- per months.'
It was then that the rent Controller passed the order of ejectment which is reproduced hereunder:--
'As per statement of Smt. Chawli respondent and the petitioners with Sh. O. L. Bhargava Advocate, petition for ejectment is allowed. In case, however, the respondent shall pay the petitioners the rent @ 40/- per month (rent for the current month and 2 months previous rent) on or before the 10th day of each English calendar month w.e.f. May 1979 then in that event petitioners shall have no right to eject the respondent from the premises in dispute. As per their statement the respondent shall pay Rs. 13.28 only as the rent of May 1979 and thereafter she will pay the agreed rent as stated above failing which she will hand over the vacant possession of the premises in dispute.'
3. It will be seen that the order of eviction was based upon the tenant's admission of the landlord's claim. Adverting now to the proviso to S. 13(2)(I) f the Act, a plain reading of it would show that the provision thereof are clearly for the benefit of the tenant namely to enable him to know the precise amount to be paid and also to provide him some time to pay if. If the tenant chooses to waive this benefit, he cannot be heard to turn round and question the legality of the order of the Rent Controller merely on the ground that he had not been given the benefit which he had himself waived, as in the present case. It is also pertinent to note that the Act nowhere provides that an order of eviction on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent cannot be passed until after the expiry of 15 days from the first date of hearing. There is thus no substance or merit in the points urged and consequently no infirmity can be imputed to the impugned order which is accordingly upheld and affirmed. This revision petition is dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 200/-.
4. Petition dismissed.