Hira Lal vs Anurag Kumar and Another

Iqbal Singh, J.—The petitioner - tenant Hira Lal has filed this revision petition to challenge the order dated 13.11.1980 passed by the Appellate Authority, Jind, whereby he maintained the order of eviction dated 27.3.1979 passed by the Rent Controller, Narwana, against the petitioner.

The facts of the case are as under:-

Anurag Kumar respondent-landlord is the owner of the shop in question which came to his share in family partition. The said shop was let out to Bir Chand (respondent No. 2) in January, 1957, for a period of six months at the rate of Rs. 90/- per month, on the expiry of which, Bir Chand became a statutory tenant. Ejectment of Bir Chand from the shop in dispute was sought on two grounds, namely, Bir Chand had sublet the shop to Hira Lal (petitioner) and that Bir Chand did not pay the arrears of rent from January 1965 onwards amounting to Rs. 9,010/-.

The eviction application was resisted by Hira Lal (petitioner) alone. In his written statement, he averred that he is direct tenant of the father of the respondent - landlord Anurag Kumar since the year 1957 against a monthly rent of Rs. 65/- which was enhanced to Rs. 90/- per month, after the imposition of house tax.

Bir Chand (respondent No. 2) in his written statement admitted the contentions of the respondent-landlord Anurag Kumar. He admitted that he had sublet the demised shop to Hira Lal (petitioner).

The following issues besides that of relief were framed by the Rent Controller:-

Whether the respondent No. 1 sublet the premises in dispute to the respondent No. 2? OPA.

Whether the tender is legal and valid? OPD (objected to) "

The Rent Controller decided issue No. 1. against the respondent-landlord Anurag Kumar by holding that petitioner Hira Lal is a tenant on the demised premises. Issue N6.2 was decided against petitioner Hira Lal and under this issue it was held by the Rent Controller that Petitioner had not complied with the proviso to Section 13(2)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. He (petitioner Hira Lal) failed to prove that he had paid the arrears of rent etc. as claimed by the landlord and calculated by the Rent Controller on 1.6.1973. In view of the findings arrived at by the Rent Controller, eviction order as passed against petitioner Hira Lal and respondent No. 2 Bir Chand vide order dated 27.3.1979.

Aggrieved against the order dated 27.3.1979, petitioner Hira Lal preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Jind. The findings of the Rent Controller under issue No. 1 were not in dispute before the Appellate Authority; meaning thereby that petitioner Hira Lal was admitted to be the tenant on the shop in question by the landlord. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal by holding under issue No. 2 that the petitioner-tenant did not comply with the order of the Rent Controller dated 1.6.1973 by depositing the amount of arrears of rent etc. in the Treasury nor did he (tenant Hira Lal) tender the arrears of rent, interest and costs of the proceedings on 14.6.1973, when, admittedly both the parties were present before the Rent Controller, and the tenant had an ample opportunity to tender the arrears of rent etc. before the Rent Controller.

I have gone through the judgments rendered by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority and the records of the case.

Both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding that petitioner tenant .Hira Lal failed to pay the arrears of rent etc. to the landlord-respondent Anurag Kumar. The eviction application was presented by respondent-landlord Anurag Kumar before the Rent Controller, Narwana, on 6.4.1973. The same was fixed for office report for 7.4.1973, on which date it was ordered that opposite party ( respondent in the eviction application) be summoned for 25.5.1973. On the said date counsel for the landlord Anurag Kumar and tenant Hira Lal were present, but no proceedings could take place because the Presiding Officer had already relinquished the charge and his successor had not taken over as yet. The official of the Court posted the case for proper orders for 1.6.1973. On 1.6.1973, the following order was passed by the Rent Controller:-

"Present respondent in person with Shri Shamsher Singh, Advocate.

The respondent is ready to pay the arrears of rent from 1.1.1965 to 31.6.1973 amounting to Rs. 9,180/- and house tax amounting to Rs. 974/- for the period July, 1961 upto the date and interest on the said amount amounting to Rs. 2,630/- totalling to Rs. 12,784/-. The costs of the application are assessed at Rs. 25/-. The applicant is not present to receive the amount tendered by the respondent before me in cash. The same be deposited in the Treasury tomorrow. It is 12.40 P.M. now. Case to come up for written statement on 14.6.1973."

Neither the tenant deposited the amount in the Treasury nor he rendered the same on 14.6.1973, when both the parties were present. The statement of petitioner-tenant Hira Lal was recorded by the Rent Controller on 14.6.1973 in which he stated that he tendered the arrears of rent, interest and costs of the proceedings on 1.6.1973, which amount was not accepted by the landlord. He, however, admitted that he did not deposit any amount in treasury and, instead, returned the same to the person from whom he had borrowed. On the other hand, landlord Anurag Kumar made a statement that on 1.6.1973, neither he nor his counsel was present and, therefore, the question of tendering the amount to him did not arise. Even if 14.5.1973 is presumed to be the first date of hearing because on 1.6.1973 the landlord was not present in Court, still the tenant did not tender the arrears of rent on 14.6.1973. When Hira Lal petitioner had asserted himself as a tenant under the landlord, he was bound to pay the arrears of rent alongwith interest and costs of the proceedings assessed by the Rent Controller. Under these circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

Consequently, I do not find any merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.