Beli Ram Deceased Represented By His L. Rs. and others vs Munsei Ram

Jai Singh Sekhon, J.—The landlord has directed this civil revision u/s 15 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the Act), against the order of the Appellate Authority, Ambala, dismissing his application for ejectment from the premises in dispute of the tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent.

In brief, the facts are that Beli Ram purchased the house in dispute from the Managing Officer, Evacuee Property, Ambala City, in the year 1959 He allegedly rented out the some to Muashi Ram tenant at the monthly rent of Rs. 5/-. The landlord sought the ejectment of the tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent for the last three years immediately preceeding the filing of the application u/s 13 of the Act. He also sought ejectment of the tenant on the ground of personal requirement to use and occupy the house, contending that he wants to settle at Ambala being a retired person and intends to the marriage of his daughter. The tenant resisted this application contending that the property in dispute was an evacuee properly and was allotted to him. The custodian, Evacuee Property offerred him the sale of the house but Bali Ram approached him for purchasing the same. He further alleged that the landlord being his maternal uncle agreed to purchase this house on his behalf against the verified claim against the property left in Pakistan with the stipulation that the landlord will transfer the house in his name, but later on he wriggled out of this stand. It is further alleged that he has been tenant of the house in dispute under the Evacuee Department and paying rent at the rate of Rs. 1.50 paise per month. The tenant tendered the rent at this rate on the first date of hearing. He denied the rate of rent to be Rs. 5/- per month, besides challenging the fides of the personal requirement of the landlord to settle at Ambala contending that he had already been permanently settled at Delhi.

The learned Rent Controller after appraising the evidence led by both the parties, held that Bali Ram is the owner of the house and their existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The plea of the landlord for personal requirement was not accepted, but the ejectment of the tenant was ordered by holding that the rate of rent being Rs. 5/- per month, the tendering of rent on the first dare of hearing was in adequate. The tenant successfully challenged the above referred order before the Appellate Authority in appeal, wherein it was held that the rate of rent was Rs. 1.50 Paise per month and that the tenant had tendered the entire amount of rent on the first date of hearing.

4 Feeling aggrieved against the said order of the Appellate Authority, the landlord has come up in this revision petition u/s 13 of the Act.

Mr. R.L. Sarin, learned Counsel for the landlord Petitioner, contended that the Appellate Authority had failed to appraise the evidence properly and that the note on the foot of the money order by the tenant clearly shows that the rate of rent was Rs. 5/- per month. It was also maintained that apparantly the signature of Munshi Ram tenant on slip marked ''B'' tallied with the admitted signatures on his statement recorded by the Rent Controller, which coupled with the evidence of Bali Ram landlord clearly proves this document. It was further maintained that the conduct of the tenant in not replying the notice Ex. A. 1 issued on behalf of the landlord alleging the rent to be at Rs. 5/- per month also proves that the rate of rent was Rs. 5/-.

Mr. Ravinder Chopra, learned Counsel for the tenant Respondent, on the other hand supported the findings of the Appellate Authority contending that the slip marked ''B'' was not even put to the tenant in order to ascertain whether it was in his hand-writing or bore his signatures. It was further maintained that the mere factum of not giving any reply to the notice given by the landlord would be of no consequence to ascertain the rate of rent.

There is no dispute between the parties that the house in dispute was evacuee property and Munshi Ram tenant was occupying it as licencee or tenant at the rate of Rs. 1-50 Paise per month under the Custodian of the Evacuee Property. Admittedly, both the parties are close relations. It is not acceptable that the tenant would agree to enhance the rent to Rs. 5/- per month without any stipulation in writing or any pressure upon him like the filing of ejectment application for fixing fair rent of the property in dispute. The money order slip, marked ''B'' was not even put to Munshi Ram (R. W. 4) in order to elicit whether it bore his signatures or not. On the other hand, it was simply put to him during cross-examination that he tendered the rent of Rs. 60/- for one year through money order and he denied the same. No effort was made by the landlord to get the signatures of Munshi Ram tenant on the receipt marked ''B'' compared with his admitted signatures. It is not even alleged by the landlord in the original application for ejectment that the tenant has sent the rent to him for one year through money order. This version saw the light of the day for the first time in the replication filed by the landlord to the reply of the tenant. There being no legal provision for filing reply to the replication, the omission of the tenant in this regard is of no consequence, especially when the tenant in his written statement had denied of having paid rent of one year as alleged in the petition. The perusal of receipt mark ''B'', reveals that it does not bear any date or the stamp of the Postal Department. It is simply mentioned therein in Urdu script that Rs. 60/- are being sent for rent. It is addressed through Bali Ram and allegedly bore the signatures of the Munshi Ram. There is no indication there from that this rent pertained to one year or for a longer period Even if the rate of rent is taken to be at Rs. 1-50 Paise per month then this figure of Rs. 60/- would cover the rent of 40 months Apparently the signatures of Munshi Ram on this slip does not tally with his signatures on the Vakalatnama or on the statement recorded by the Rent Controller as R. W. 4. Under these circumstances, the Appellate Authority rightly held that this receipt being not properly proved, was of no consequence, in concluding that the rate of rent was Rs. 5/- per month.

In view of these circumstances, the mere omission of the tenant in not replying to the notice dated 24th July, 1974, issued by Shri Banarsi Dass Aggarwal, Advocate, on behalf of the landlord and received by the tenant vide acknowledgment Ex. A. 3 is of no consequence to infer that the rate of rent was Rs. 5/- per month.

For the foregoing reasons, there being no merit in this petition, it is hereby dismissed but the parties are left to bear their own costs in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case.