Kulwant Singh vs Dalip Kumar

K. Kannan, J.—The revision petition is against the dismissal of the petition for ejectment made by the Rent Controller as affirmed by the

judgment of the Appellate Authority. The only ground of eviction that was laid by the landlord was that the tenant had been in default in payment of

rent from 01.03.1991 to 31.12.1996. The petition had been filed on 13.12.1996. The rent was stated to be Rs. 400/- per month. The contention

in reply by the tenant was that there had been no default at all in the payment of rent and his wife herself had received the rent. The tenant relied on

a note signed by the wife of the petitioner containing the signature and requesting for an amount of Rs. 500/- to be sent through the bearer of the

letter. At the trial, this document was confronted to petitioner and assigned a mark DA and this was also spoken to by the respondent. The tenant

relied on a yet another document said to have been made on a compromise effected between the parties in the presence of respectable and relied

on Ex. R1 that contains the signature of both parties and two witnesses. This was purported to be letter addressed to the SHO, Beggowal. Both

the Courts below accepted the contention of the tenant and dismissed the petition filed for eviction. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out

that the Court could not have relied on the document marked DA in view of the fact that the document did not contain any date and did not also

spell that the amount of rent was being demanded through the bearer. The letter contained the following lines:-

Brother, I am myself sending this letter to you. The bearer be given Rs. 500/-. Ok. -sd- Balwinder Kaur.

(free translation).

This letter ought to have been assigned an exhibit number itself since the document was confronted to the petitioner and when he denied it, the

tenant himself spoke about the document as having been received through a bearer of the petitioner''s wife. The document is proved to the extent

to which it was possible as document received to him purported to have been signed by the petitioner''s wife. No doubt, the letter does not make

any reference to rent but at least it showed that the relationship had been reasonably cordial and the wife was demanding a particular sum of

money. The date is also not there but with reference to detail which the document is silent about, Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act makes

possible evidence to be given to supplement what the document does not give. While a parole evidence to contract, a written document is barred

by law, there is no bar to explaining the circumstances to which a particular document is silent about. The document could not have been,

therefore, rejected out of consideration and must have been taken along with other circumstances to consider whether the defence was true or not.

Since the landlord was contending that he had demanded the arrears of rent from the year 1991 to 1996 before the filing of the petition in the

presence of Dharampal, the trial Court made a finding of the fact that Dharampal could have been examined but he was not brought before the

Court about the alleged payment of arrears of rent by the landlord and the denial by the tenant. The Court also reasoned that the wife of the

petitioner herself was most competent person to speak about the document marked DA but she had not stepped into the witness stand. This was

of the more relevant in view of the contention by the tenant that he used to pay rent on many occasions only to the wife. The Court made a pointed

reference to admission elicited in the course of cross-examination of the landlord that his wife Balwinder Kaur was doing all transactions relating to

his business during his absence and when he was in India, he received the rent and after his absence from India, his wife had received the rent. This

circumstance, the Court found as a further pointer to test the respective contentions of landlord and the tenant and to make a reference that non-

examination of the wife especially in a situation where the landlord was most of the time outside India, was relevant.

Learned counsel points out that Ex. R1 was itself not a document that would show that there was a compromise between the parties. I have

seen from the translated copy of the document Ex. R1. This is a statement said to have been made to SHO, Biggowal that acknowledge the fact of

payment of Rs. 8,000/- by the landlord to the tenant and Rs. 3,000/- paid by the landlord to the Lion Club. This also records the fact that the

tenant had filed a suit for injunction and that he would have ultimately abide by the decision of the Civil Court. The Panchayat had secured the

refund of Rs. 5,000/- from the tenant to the landlord since the amount of Rs. 8,000/- was found to be excessive. This document does not show

that the parties have compromised the matter or that the landlord was willing to have the petition dismissed as withdrawn. On the other hand, it

shows that there had been mere attempt on the part of the parties to ensure that their dispute was resolved only through a Court process and

particularly in the suit filed by the tenant against the landlord for injunction. I have not any better details now as to what happened to the suit and

whether the case went through an adjudication on merits. However, I do not think it is essential since the Courts below have themselves not

referred to this document as the singular piece for consideration against the landlord.

While sifting evidence, the Courts below have considered the non-examination of the Dharampal and the wife of the petitioner, who were most

competitive to speak about the payment by the tenant when the landlord demanding the alleged arrears and for considering the circumstances

whether the tenant could have been allowed to be in default of long period of time especially when the landlord had admitted that the wife used to

look after his transaction during his absence from India. The Court has considered every consumable issue of fact and come to the conclusion that

the landlord''s contention was not true. I find no reason to set aside the findings of fact as a court of revision. There is nothing patently wrong in the

decisions of the Courts below and the ultimate decision accords with the evidence tendered before the Rent Controller. The decisions are,

therefore, confirmed and the revision petition is dismissed.