Harbans Singh vs Sadhu Singh and Others

V.K. Jhanji, J.—This revision petition has been directed against the order of Appellate Authority, under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short ''the Act''), dismissing the appeal filed by the tenant, and affirming the order passed by the Rent Controller whereby the Rent Controller ordered the ejectment of the tenant from the shop in dispute.

Sadhu Singh filed an application u/s 13 of the Act for the ejectment of tenant (petitioner herein), on the ground of nonpayment of rent. It was claimed in the said application that the petitioner who is in occupation of the shop in dispute as a tenant at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month, is liable to be ejected as he has failed to pay the arrears of rent w.e.f. 24-10-1975 to 24-5-1979.

The application u/s 13 of the Act was contested by the tenant, who claimed that the rate of rent is Rs. 20/- per month, and not Rs. 30/- per month as alleged by the landlord in his application. He further stated that he has already paid the rent upto 31-8-1978, and therefore, on the first date of hearing, he tendered the rent only w.e.f. 1-8-1978 which was accepted by the landlord under protest.

The Rent Controller after finding that the rate of rent is Rs. 30/- per month, and the tenant having failed to prove that he paid the rent for the period for which he claimed to have paid the same, passed an order of ejectment against him. Being aggrieved of the said order of Rent Controller, the tenant-petitioner filed an appeal before the first appellate Court. Along with the said appeal, the petitioner also filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure, so as to produce, by way of additional evidence, the receipts regarding payment of rent for the period 24-10-1975 to 31-8-1978. In the said application no explanation whatsoever was given that as to why, the receipts sought to be produced by way of additional evidence, were not produced before the Rent Controller. Regarding this fact, the petitioner averred that he could not produce the aforesaid receipts earlier by inadvertance. The application as well as the appeal were dismissed by the Appellate Authority after finding that the tenant failed to produce the evidence that any rent was paid by him for the period November, 1975 to August, 1978 even at the rate of Rs. 20/- per month. This order is being impugned by the petitioner in this revision petition.

Along with the revision petition, the petitioner has again filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27 read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, for producing the receipts for the period 24-10-1975 to 31-8-1978.

Mr. Gurdial Singh Jaswal, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this Court can look into the receipts sought to be produced by the petitioner, in order to determine as to whether the rent was paid from 24-10-1975 to 31-8-1978. However, I am not in agreement with this contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner in his written statement specifically averred that he has paid the rent upto 31-8-1978, to the landlord. When he appeared as RW-3 he produced certain receipts, but receipts for this very period were not produced. Even in the application before the first Appellate Court, no explanation whatsoever was given by him that as to why the receipts were not produced in the first instance, i.e. before the Rent Controller This Court, for the first time in revisional jurisdiction, cannot look into the receipts which were not produced or proved before the Rent Controller. In the absence of any authenticity of the receipts now sought to be produced for the first time, no credence can be placed on the same. I am, therefore, of the view that no interference is called for in the findings given by the authorities below,

Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed, but with no order as to costs However, the petitioner-tenant is allowed three month''s time to vacate the premises provided he pays the entire arrears of rent within one month from today, and also files an undertaking before the Rent Controller the effect that he shall hand over the vacant possession of the premises in dispute on the expiry of aforesaid period.