Anajni Kumar and Another vs Tarlochan Lal

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is landlords'' revision petition in whose favour eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller, but the same was set aside in appeal by the Appellate Authority.

The landlords sought the ejectment of the tenant Tarlochan Lal from the demised premises on the allegations that the demised premises were let out to him at a monthly rent of Rs. 300/-. He was in arrears of rent from March 1, 1979 to October 31, 1981. The landlords required the premises bona fide for their own use and occupation. The ejectment application was filed on November 5, 1987. The tenant denied the said allegations. According to him, the rent was at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month, which was being paid every month. There were no arrears of rent as alleged. The learned Controller found that the rent was Rs. 150/- and not Rs. 300/- per month, as alleged by the landlords. However, he found that the tenant was in arrears of rent even at the said rate of rent of Rs. 150/- per month with effect from November 5, 1979. On this ground alone, the eviction order was passed against the tenant. In appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the learned Rent Controller after discussing the entire evidence on the record. He found the landlords to be liars. Consequently, the eviction order passed against him was set aside.

At the time of the motion hearing, it was submitted that evens if the rate of rent was Rs. 150/- per month, the tender was short and the tenant was liable to be ejected from the demised premises.

From the record, I find that no tender whatsoever was made by the tenant on the first date of hearing. According to him, he was never in arrears of rent. Thus, the said contention was without any basis. The landlords have been found to be wrong as regards the rate of rent as well as the period of tenancy. According to the landlords, the tenant was inducted in the year 1979 whereas there is ample evidence to show that he was there since the year 1965. The tenant produced the receipt dated October 10, 1979, Exhibit R. 4. The said receipt belies the claim of the landlords when the rent was claimed from March 1, 1979. Thus, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the findings of the Appellate Authority.

During the pendency of this revision petition, the tenant moved Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 631-CII of 1987 wherein certain subsequent events were stated in order to rebut the ground of persona] necessity taken by the landlords. However, the said ground was never argued either before the Appellate Authority or in this Court. The civil Miscellaneous application is, therefore, dismissed as infructuous.

Consequently, this revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs.