Though after noticing the fact that the petitioner has failed to make the payment of provisional rent as assessed and has incurred his liability of eviction from the demised premises in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Rajan's case (supra) and Rakesh Wadhawan vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation & Ors. 2003 (2) Civil Court Cases 361 (SC), there is no need to further go into any other question yet this Court may mention at this stage that even the argument as raised is liable to be rejected as it is well settled that payment of rent has to be proved by the tenant. In this case, the petitioner has taken a specific plea that after dismissal of civil suit in March, 2008, he was making the payment upto March 2008, but no receipt was issued to him has not been accepted as the respondent has come with a specific plea of non-payment of rent w.e.f. 1.2.1998. The petitioner has failed to lead any evidence to prove the aforesaid factum that even after dismissal of Civil Suit No.476 of 13.11.2003 on 27.3.2008, he has paid the rent of the demised premises w.e.f. 30.9.2003 as admittedly, the petitioner has tendered an amount of Rs.1,14,000/- plus interest of Rs.463/- for a period of 36 months prior to the filing of the eviction petition on 12.3.2008. Moreover, the suit was filed as a Notification was issued that properties fetching rent more than Rs.1,500/per month would not come within purview of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. The said notification was subsequently struck down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The suit was decided under Order 17 Rule 3 Code of Civil Procedure as plaintiffs (now respondents) had failed to lead any evidence. With the striking down of Notification, the proceedings taken in the civil suit are a nullity. The petitioner cannot take benefit of any such finding recorded by the Civil Court that respondents have failed to prove that they were entitled for recovery of Rs.1,53,813/- on account of
