Dev Raj vs Tarsem Lal (died) through his L.Rs. and Others

V.S. Aggarwal, J.—The present revision petition has been field by Dev Raj, hereinafter described as "the petitioner", directed against the order of the learned Rent Controller, Batala, dated 1.2.1988 and that of the learned Appellate Authority, Gurdaspur, dated 17.10.1989. The order of eviction was passed by the Rent Controller and upheld by the Appellate Authority.

The relevant facts are that the respondents had filed an eviction application against the petitioner with respect to the property in question. It was asserted that the rent is Rs. 150/- per month and that the arrears of rent have not been paid since 24.1.1983. The petitioner contested the eviction application and took up the defence that, in fact, the rent is only Rs. 15/- per month. The rent at the said rate was tendered on the first date of hearing. The petitioner reiterated that he has been occupying the shop since the year 1959. The original rent was Rs. 10/- per month but it was raised to Rs. 15/- per month. It is not in controversy that on 4.1.1986 the petitioner tendered Rs. 540/- as arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 15/- per month from 24.1.1983 to 23.1.1986, besides Rs. 50/- as costs and Rs. 55/- as interest. The same was accepted under protest.

The learned Rent Controller had framed the issues and after recording the evidence has held that the agreed rent is Rs. 150/- per month. The rent was not tendered at that rate. The receipts produced by the tenant were not acted upon. The findings were approved by the learned Appellate Authority.

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that onus has wrongly been placed upon the petitioner. It was for the respondent-landlord to establish what was the agreed rent and not for the petitioner. In strict legal sense what was alleged is correct. It was the respondent-landlord who came to the Court asserting and claiming a particular amount to be the agreed rent. Thus, it was for the respondent-landlord to establish the same and the authorities could not have placed the onus on the petitioner. But merely on the account it would not be appropriate to set aside the said finding. When the parties led evidence knowing fully well the controversy in that event the onus of proof become immaterial. If in one paragraph the Appellate Authority had wrongly referred to the onus, that would not imply that the judgment as such must be set aside.

The Appellate Authority had considered the other evidence on the record and further concluded that the agreed rent, in fact, is Rs. 150/- per month and not Rs. 15/- per month. In coming to this conclusion, the receipt of the petitioner have been ignored. The same are findings of fact arrived at on appreciation of evidence. They are not absurd. Therefore, this Court will not interfere in such finding of fact and it must be taken that the agreed rent was Rs. 150/- per month. On the first date of hearing, the said rent was not tendered and consequently the order of eviction was rightly passed. There is no ground to interfere.

The revision petition accordingly must fail and is dismissed. The petitioner is granted two months time to vacate the property.