Atul Glass Co. vs Smt. Bimla Devi and Another

V.S. Aggarwal, J.—The present revision petition has been filed by M/s. Atul Glass Co. hereinafter described as the petitioner. The petitioner challenges the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller, Faridabad, dated 23.1.1995 and that of the Appellate Authority dated 4.11.1996. The learned Appellate Authority had dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.

Some of the relevant facts are that the petitioner was occupying the shop in dispute as a tenant. The respondents had purchased the said shop on 30.3.1987. The respondents claimed eviction on the ground that the petitioner is a tenant in the suit premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,250/- and has not paid the arrears of rent from 30.4.1987. It was asserted further that the petitioner had executed the agreement on 30.4.1989 agreeing to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 1,250/- per month. They appeared and contested the petition for eviction. He claimed that the agreed rent was only Rs. 850/- per month. He tendered the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 850/- per month including costs and interest. The same had been accepted under protest. It was denied that the agreed rent was Rs. 1,250/- per month. The petitioner did not dispute that he had issued four cheques as claimed by respondent.

The learned Rent Controller framed issues and recorded evidence. The findings recorded were that the agreed rent was Rs. 1250/- per month and on the first date of hearing the entire arrears of rent had not been tendered. Therefore, the order of eviction was passed. The petitioner preferred an appeal. The same was dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the respondents had failed to prove the rent note and contended that house tax was paid showing the rent at Rs. 850/- per month. He argued further that the respondents had failed to prove that the agreed rent was at Rs. 1250/- per month and, therefore, the findings of the learned Rent Controller and that of the learned Appellate Authority cannot be sustained. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents, at the first instance urged that certain findings of fact had been arrived at by the learned Rent Controller and the learned Appellate Authority and the same should not be disturbed in the revision petition because there was no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. He further contended that in fact, the petitioner had admitted that the rent was Rs. 1250/- per month and cheques in this regard had been issued.

On close scrutiny, it must be held in the facts of the present case that the findings of the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority do not require any disturbance. So far as reliance being placed on the fact that house tax is being paid showing the rent at Rs. 850/- is concerned, at the outset it deserves a mention that though the said evidence in a given fact would be relevant but would not be conclusive. In the present case, admittedly, earlier the petitioner was a tenant in the property at a monthly rent of Rs. 850/- per month. If he had paid house tax at that rate and the house tax was not reduced, it will not permit or imply that the agreed rate of rent would continue to be Rs. 850/- per month. To this extent, therefore, the said evidence was rightly ignored by the learned Rent Controller and the learned Appellate Authority.

In the written statement that was filed by the petitioner, in paragraph 4 it was pleaded as under :-

"That the contents of para no. 4 of the petition are totally wrong and false and hence vehemently, categorically and specifically denied. The petitioner No. 1''s husband who is also the father of the petitioner No. 2 have been approaching the respondent informing verbally that he had purchased the shop premises and requesting the respondent to pay the rent to him and the respondent in good faith had issued cheques by putting future dates to clear the balance rent but with clear understanding that the sale deed would be produced to prove that the ownership of the shop has been changed and further there would be a written agreement in respect of the shop in question but Shri R.P. Mittal never turned honest to his words and ultimately the respondent had no alternative but to see that the cheques are not encashed and deliberately did not make the arrangement for the encashment of the amounts of the said cheques. The respondent had issued the cheques with tentative amounts with a mind to clear the arrears of rent. The petitioners or Shri R.P. Mittal never produced the sale deed or any other document to prove their averments that they have become the owners in respect of the tenanted premises i.e. shop and the respondent was always in suspense about the ownership of the shop in question. The respondent, however, on the persisting requests had paid the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 850/- per month in cash to Shri R.P. Mittal who posed and represented the petitioners but the receipt was not executed by Shri R.P. Mittal in token of having received the said amount on the pretext that he would enter into an agreement and then shall give in writing the entire things."

It is true that the pleadings have to be read as a whole and not one line in isolation of the other. But important fact is that the petitioner pleaded that he issued cheques to the respondents which was tentative amount with a mind to clear the arrears of rent. Four cheques had been given, namely, for Rs. 10,000/- dated 21.5.1989, Rs. 10,000/- dated 20.2.1990, Rs. 5,000/- dated 13.5.1989 and Rs. 5,000/- which is undated. In other words, certain amount vide dated cheques were given but the total amount for which cheques were given was Rs. 30,000/-. The arrears of rent were being claimed from 30.4.1987 to 29.4.1989. If the rent is Rs. 1250/- per month, it would be for 24 months. It makes one believe the respondent that cheques had been issued to clear upto date arrears of rent and so was the intention of the respondent. The rent, therefore, was held to be Rs. 1250/- per month. The same fact get corroboration from Exhibit P-3 purported to have been executed on behalf of the petitioner. It recites the rent @ Rs. 1250/- per month. The petitioner denies his signatures but when the same is read with the cheques that were issued the conclusion was obvious that the rent was Rs. 1250/- per month.

Otherwise also, these are findings of fact that had been arrived at. It is a fact as to whether the rent was Rs. 1250/- or Rs. 850/- per month. Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority appraised the facts and arrived at a finding. The said finding is based on evidence. It cannot be termed to be absurd or there was any misreading of evidence. There is no illegality or impropriety in the same. For the reasons recorded above, there is no ground to interfere.

For these reasons, the revision petition being without merit must fail and dismissed. The petitioner is granted two months time to vacate the demised premises.