Mahavir Jain Shoe Store vs Dr. Gian Chand Loomba and Another

R.L. Anand, J.—This is a tenant''s revision and has been directed against the judgment dated 17.3.1983 passed by the court of the appellate authority, Ludhiana, under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called ''the Act''), who set aside the order dated 30.11.1979 passed by the Rent Controller, Samrala, vide which the petition of the landlord u/s 13 of the Act was dismissed and the appellate authority allowed the ejectment petition and ordered for the eviction of the tenant.

The pleadings of the parties are that Dhani Ram, landlord, filed an ejectment petition u/s 13 of the Act against M/s Mahavir Jain Shoe Store and the case set up by the landlord was that he is the landlord of the demised premises and the respondent took the premises in dispute on rent for a period of 11 months w.e.f. 1.3.1968, at a monthly rent, of Rs. 60/-. The respondent is liable to be ejected as he has neither paid nor tendered the arrears of rent from 1.4.1977 besides the house tax for period 1975-76 at the rate of Rs. 15/- per month; that the premises in dispute are unsafe and unfit for human habitation; that the petitioner wanted to reconstruct the same and that the premises were required for the married son of the petitioner as he wanted to start his medical practice at Khanna.

Notice was given to the tenant who file reply and denied the allegations. According to the tenant he had already tendered the arrears of rent along with the house tax on the first date of hearing and, in these circumstances, the ground for non-payment of rent does not survive. It was also the stand of the tenant that the premises in question was a shop and that the landlord could not claim the premises for his son. Moreover, the landlord has a spacious house in the local limits of Municipal Committee, Khanna. It was also the stand of the tenant that the building is safe and sound and it has not become unsafe or unfit for human habitation.

On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues for the disposal of the petition:-

"1) Whether the premises in dispute are unfit and unsafe for human habitation? OPP.

2) Whether the premises are required bonafide for the married son of the petitioner for carrying on medical practice ? If so, its effect ? OPP.

3) Relief."

The parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their case and finally the Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment petition of the landlord. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, the landlord filed an appeal before the appellate authority, Ludhiana, who for the reasons given in para 6, allowed the rent petition and aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority, the present revision by the tenant. During the pendency of this revision, the tenant also made an application under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC, dated 7.5.1983 for leading additional evidence. By this judgment I shall dispose of the main revision as well as the application under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC, and first of all, I will deal with the application.

It has been alleged in the application that the landlord filed the ejectment petition in the year 1977. The petitioner wants to place on record two judgments which were delivered by the competent court of jurisdiction on the criminal side on 20.2.1981 and 20.2.1982, vide which the petitioner was acquitted and findings have been given by the criminal court that the allegations of the landlord are false as he wanted to pressurise the tenant with the intention to make him to vacate the demised premises.

Order 41 Rule 27, CPC, lays down that the parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the appellate court, but if the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or the appellate court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the appellate court may allow such evidence or document to be produced or witness to be examined. When additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an appellate court, the court shall record the reason for its admission.

The provisions under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC, primarily are meant for the appellate court but its operation can be stretched even to the revisional jurisdiction by adopting the principles as enunciated is this Order. The basicy point for determination is whether with the placing on record of the documents, the tenant will be able to improve the case and whether the proposed additional evidence is necessary for the High Court, i.e. the revisional authority, to enable it to pronounce the judgment or whether the proposed evidence is required to be admitted for any substantial cause.

The answer of this court would be in-the negative in the given facts and circumstances. It appears that during the pendency of the rent petition, the tenant made certain improvements in the structure of the demised premises so as to dislodge the claim of the landlord that the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. As a result of that, the landlord had to file a civil suit in the competent court of jurisdiction with a prayer that the defendant (tenant) be restrained from interfering in the structure of the property so that he may not be able to create a defence against his legitimate cause. It further appears that some criminal litigation also started between the landlord and the tenant and the tenant was prosecuted in the criminal litigation. The benefit of doubt was given to the tenant and it was held by the criminal court that the allegations of the landlord are not correct with regard to the commission of the offence. These judgments will not held this court to enable it to pronounce the judgment nor these judgments are necessary for any substantial cause. The language of Order 41 Rule 27, CPC, starts in a negative tone when it lays down that no party to an appeal shall have the right to produce additional evidence unless such party brings out a case as per the parameters laid down in the said order itself. The findings of the criminal courts can only be looked into for the purposes of a fact, that is the result of that criminal litigation. Those judgments are relevant only to see that the accused has been acquitted. The reasons of acquittal are not binding on the civil court. In the present revision, the point for determination is, whether the demised premises were unsafe and unfit for human habitation or not and whether the building of which the demised premises is a part had become unsafe or unfit for human habitation as alleged by the landlord and whether the tenant is liable to be evicted from the demised premises. In this view of the matter, I do not see any merit in the application under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC, and dismiss the same.

Before I revert to the main revision itself and before I proceed with the submissions raised by the counsel for the parties, I would like to reproduce para-6 of the judgment of the appellate authority, which reads as under :-

"Shri S.R. Wadhera learned counsel for the landlord-appellants in his successful endeavour of assailing and impeaching the verdict returned by the learned Rent Controller on this material and vital issue No. 1 correctly brought to the fore some of the damaging admissions made by Joginder Pal tenant-respondent RW-1 that the back wall of the shop in his possession having already collapsed is no longer in existence and 7-8 wooden balas and one wooden sleeper having fallen due to damage caused by white-ants were replaced by him. Mr. Wadhera in this behalf also brought into sharp prominence para No.3 of the written statement Ex.A6 wherein Joginder Pal tenant-respondent RW-1 admitted that some wooden balas and wooden sleepers had fallen and those were replaced by him at his own costs. This written statement Ex.A6 would be found to have been put in the court in reply to the plaint in the suit for permanent injunction instituted by Dhani Ram deceased (father of landlord-appellants) against Joginder Pal tenant-respondent RW-1 restraining the respondent from carrying out any repairs in the demised shop or reconstructing any demolished portion. Mr. Wadhera learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the suit for permanent injunction was withdrawn in view of the statement made by the tenant-respondent that he would not effect any repairs or reconstruct any portion of the tenanted shop. The harsh and hard fact of the back wall of the shop being no longer in existence after having fallen down would also be found to have been supported by Shri Babu Ram Gupta Over-seer AWI vide his report dated 23.2.78 Ex.A-1 which he submitted after having visited and inspected the shop in dispute. According to the report Ex.A-1 the doors in the last room of the shop were also found to be missing. This part of his statement was fund to be correct in the course of the spot inspection conducted by the court on 12.3.1983 at 5.15 P.M. Babu Ram Gupta Overseer AW-1 in his report Ex.A-1 also found the wooden batons and Karriers in a dilapidated condition, having been eaten by white-ants. This fact was confirmed in the course of the inspection conducted by the court as is indicated at point B in the memorandum of inspection. As already pointed out and discussed 7-8 balas and sleeper were also found to have been eaten by white-ants and the same were replaced by Joginder Pal tenant-respondent RW-1 as he himself admitted not only in Ex.A-6 but also in his sworn statement made in the court. This fact stood confirmed when the shop was inspected by the court as is indicated by point D in the inspection note. A number of wooden balas and sleeper were found to have been replaced with new ones and fresh cement pointing was clearly visible on the bricks tiles which were put on these balas and sleeper. The rest of the roof of the demised shop was found to have been covered with wooden planks which were pained white. Babu Ram Gupta Overseer AW-1 detected big cracks in the corner ends of the shop and the wooden upper cover of the gate of the shop was also found in a bent condition. All these defects pointed out by Shri Babu Ram Gupta, AW-1 in his report Ex.A-1 and his sworn statements were found to be clearly visible in the course of the inspection of the shop conducted by the Court. Joginder Pal tenant-respondent RW1 in his worn statement tried to suppress the truth of the non-existence of the back wall of the shop when he spoke with ambivalence by deposing that he did not know if the back wall of the shop had fallen or not. However, Gurdial Singh RW-4 admitted the fact of such back wall of the shop being not in existence. The court in the course of inspection of the shop found one pillar made of big bricks having been erected in the last room of the shop and it was clearly with a view to providing support and strength to the ceiling of the shop as the same could not remain intact in the absence of the back wall of the shop. This circumstance would thus go a long way in arriving the irresistible conclusion of the shop having been rendered unfit or unsafe for human habitation as the ceiling is resting on the pillar made of big bricks vide 1982(1) R.C.R. 407. Mr. Wadhera espousing the cause of his client landlord-appellants very rightly contended that Joginder Pal tenant-respondent RW-1 could not have replaced white ants eaten wooden balas and sleeper of his own without the prior permission either of his landlord or the Rent Controller through an application u/s 12 of the Act. The fact that a number of wooden balas and a sleeper were in the dilapidated condition clearly indicates the condition of the shop being unfit or unsafe for human, habitation and the right that accrues to the landlord-appellants to seek eviction of Joginder Pal tenant-respondent RW-1 from the demised shop could not have been frustrated by him (tenant) who could not heard to say that he had made the building safe and fit after having carried out repairs himself or even under an order passed on his application u/s 12 of the Act by the Rent Controller. Such a right of seeking eviction of a tenant from the premises having been rendered unsafe or unfit for human habitation would remain alive and intact to a landlord vide A.l.R. 1975 S.C. 2156 and 1982(2) R.L.R. 463 . It is not disputed that the first floor of the building which though un-occupied is under the control of the landlord-appellants is completely in a ruinous state. Mr. H.S. Gill S.D.O. AW-6 though submitted a partial and biased report Ex.R1 could not help admitted the circumstances of the western wall in the chubara on the first floor having one out of plumb and this wall having also left its vertical joint which the court on the basis of the spot inspection indicated at point G in its inspection report. Shri. H.S. Gill RW-6 in his inspection report Ex.R1 nowhere made even a passing reference to the back wall of the shop being not in existence after having collapsed and the ceiling in the back room having been supported with a pillar made of big bricks. When cross-examined on this point he came forward with a funny statement that he could not say if the back wall of the shop had fallen or not. He also could not tell the age of the demised premises even when he claim to be a qualified person. This fact would again be found to have been deliberately suppressed by him when the old age of the building could have been very easily ascertained from the circumstance the building having been made of small bricks. The report Ex.R-1 submitted by Mr. H.S. Gill AW-6 would also be found to have not made a reference to the ruinous state of the first floor of the building which is in completely damaged condition. Roofs of the chubara and verandah and the back room were found to have completely collapsed and thus need reconstruction. Mr. S.R. Wadehra learned counsel for the landlord- appellants highlighted the circumstances of H.S. Gill AW-6 having been persuaded to prepare and submit his report Ex.R-1 tainted with serious omissions at the instance of Shri Ram Murti Advocate who is married to Joginder Pal tenant-respondent''s sister and is on friendly terms with Mr. Gill as both of them are admittedly members of the same club and often meet there. It is also admitted by Mr. H.S. Gill AW6 that he accompanied by Shri Ram Murti, Advocate, went to Khanna to inspect the demised shop but he deliberately chose not to mention the name of Shri Ram Murti irt his report Ex.R-1 which indicated that the inspection of the shop was conducted in the presence of Shri Lumba son of Shri Dhani Ram and Shri Joginder Pal respondent. This fact was clearly mentioned in the written objections which were filed by Dhani Ram deceased to the inspection conducted by Mr. H.S. Gill AW-6. These objections were not at all considered and discussed by the learned Rent Controller who gave a complete go-bye to the same. The careful and critical examination of the reports Ex.A-1 and site plan Ex.A-2 submitted by Shri Babu Ram Gupta Over-seer AW-1 report Ex.R-1 submitted by Shri H.S. Gill AW-6 who, however, did not prepare and submit any site plan of the demised premises and the sworn statement made by these witnesses coupled with the inspection of the premises conducted by the court on 12.3.1983 would leave nothing in doubt that the substantial part of the building including tenanted shop is in dilapidated condition. Mr. Wadehra learned counsel for the appellants by correctly relying upon this factual position existing at the spot pressed into service 1982(1) R.C.R. 413 which has authoritatively laid down that an eviction of a tenant can be ordered from a building where its substantial part is found to be in dilapidated condition. In case in hand even the shop in possession of Joginder Pal tenant-respondent RW-1 has been found to be unfit or unsafe for human habitation. Mr. Y.P. Ghai learned, counsel for the tenant-respondent relied upon Maharaj Jagat Bahadur Singh Vs. Badri Prasad Seth, to foil and frustrate the application moved by the landlord-appellants u/s 13(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. This judicial authority of the Hon''ble Supreme Court would be found to be of no avail to the tenant-respondent and it would rather be found to have supported the case set up by the appellants. Undoubtedly, section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the Act would be attracted only when the building work is such that the landlord requires the building to be vacated by the tenant in order to carry out repairs which so extensive and fundamentally in character that the same would not be carried out if the tenant remains in possession of the building. Small work was indicated in this judicial pronouncement to be while-washing or filling of gaps in the door. In case under discussion this court has found not only the first floor of the building to be completely in ruinous state but also the tenanted shop having been rendered to be unfit or unsafe for human habitation. 1982(1) R.C.J. 237 counted upon by Mr. Y.P. Ghai would be found to be beside the mark inasmuch as in this reported case the tenanted shop under a chubara though found to be 50-60 years old was reconstructed about 15 years back by putting lintal roof on girders and its walls were also found to be not out of plumb. In such circumstances the shop was rightly held to be not unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Learned trial court would thus be found to have completely gone wrong in adjudicating issue No. 1 hostile to the landlord-appellants and this court reversing this finding hereby concludes this issue harmonious to the landlord-appellants."

I have heard Mr. Rajinder Goyal, counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Sweena Pannu, Advocate, on behalf of the respondent and with their assistance have gone rough the record of this case.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the report, Ex.R-1-dated 31.3.1978 given by the Local Commissioner, it cannot be said that the premises in dispute have become unsafe and unfit for human habitation.

I will deal with this aspect of the case in a short moment but first of all, I would like to make a reference to the substantive provisions of the Act. As per section 13 of the Act, a landlord is entitled to eviction of any tenant in the case of any building if he requires to carry out any building work at the instance of the Govt. or local authority or any Improvement Trust under some improvement or development scheme or if it has become unsafe or unfit for human habitation.

Whether the building has become unsafe or unfit for human habitation will be a question of fact depending upon each case. In Pawan Kumar Vs. Gulzari Lal, it has been held that the landlord is not supposed to prove that the building is likely to fall down at any time. In other words, it has to be seen factually as to whether the demised premises or the building of which the demised premises is part, has become unsafe or unfit for human habitation keeping in view its actual condition. Referring to the report, Ex.R-1, of the Local Commissioner, the site in question was inspected and the Local Commissioner gave the report on 31.3.1978. Before I further discuss the report, we have to see whether the demised premises or the building of which the demised premises is a part, has become unsafe or unfit for human habitation on the date of the filling of the petition itself and not on the date of the ejectment order or the ejectment order which may be passed by the competent court of jurisdiction. In this regard, Lean also referred to the judgment of this court in Brij Lal v. Shiv Mohan and Anr. 1996(2) R.L.R. 256, wherein it was held that the tenant cannot be permited to defeat the right of the landlord by effecting repairs of such damaged building after the filing of the ejectment petition. Also, it was held in Balbir Kumar and Others Vs. Kaka Ram and Others, that the right to relief must be judged to exist as on the date suit is filed and the landlord alone has the choice to take the decision. The Local Commissioner in the report dated 31.3.1978 had stated as follows:-

"1. The ceiling of the ground floor looks new and seems to be safe.

Side walls i.e. common walls with the adjoining shops are quite stable on its foundation and no cracks were found at the time of inspection which are safe to bear the loadings.

The wooden battens of roof of ground floor are looks new and seems to be safe.

The wooden sleepers (shatiries) are quite fit to bear the load of the roofing i.e. live load and dead load of the first floor. Further more the span is very short which avoid the failure in binding as well as in shear.

The roof of the ground floor was also found recently disturbed during my inspection dated 21.3.78. Due to disturbance, the material was found lying on the roof itself and the dust, the broken pieces of bricks and plaster were found in the shop when inspected. Further more the roof of the first floor was also found disturbed at the same very point.

The side walls of the first floor are.............with the adjoining storeys which are safe.

Only the front wall of the upper storey found cleaved off from the side walls due to vertical crack along joint with the side walls upto the roof level of the ground floor, which can be dismantled, but there is no danger to the ground floor.

The first floor seems to be neglected from the maintenance point of view. Where as ground floor is concerned, that is safe, until and unless the roof on this floor is not disturbed and maintained properly."

A close reading of the same would show that the tenant has made the mischief and he has made an effort to give a new look to the demised premises so that this premises may become safe. The fact is that the premises were unsafe and unfit for human habitation and in order to save himself from eviction, the tenant had taken the trouble to spend some money here or there so that he may be able to give a dodge to the law. The Local Commissioner had admitted in the report that the ground floor looks new. Similarly, wooden battens of roof of ground floor looks new and of course seems to be safe. Also, it has been stated that the wooden sleepers (shatiries) are quite fit to bear the load of the roofing. The roof of the ground floor was also found recently disturbed and due to that disturbance, the material was found lying on the roof itself and the dust, broken pieces of bricks and plaster were found in the shop when inspected. Moreover, the roof of the first floor was also found disturbed at the same very point. Thus, there is no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the tenant has made a mischief and has made a crude endeavour to make the building habitable. As I have stated above, the landlord filed a civil suit against the tenant with a prayer to restrain him from interfering in the construction- of the demised premises. The tenant filed the written statement which is Ex.A-6 on the record. In para-3 of the written statement, the tenant has admitted as follows :-

"Only a wooden sleeper and a few balas have fallen down due to damage caused by the white ants."

The tenant further admitted that these ballas and wooden sleepers have been replaced by him some 11/12 days at his own cost. It is also admitted by the tenant that he had effected petty repairs. The above admission on the part of the tenant goes a long way to prove that the condition of the premises in dispute was unsafe and unfit for human habitation. An admission is best evidence that an opposite party can rely upon and though not conclusive is decisive of the matter, unless successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous. Ex.A-6 is an admission made by the tenant in the judicial proceedings and, therefore it has to be considered as conclusive.

The landlord examined Babu Ram Gupta, Overseer, who gave his-report dated 23.2.1978, Ex.A-1, and according to this report, the doors of the last room of the shop were found to be missing. Further, the expert examined by the-landlord found the wooden battens and karries in the ground floor portion of the shop were in dilapidated condition having been eaten by white ant. Both the facts were further confirmed when the Rent Controller himself visited the demised premises. Further the court came to the conclusion at the time of the inspection that a number of ballas and sleepers were found to have been replaced with new ones and fresh cement was applied on the bricks. As per the report of Babu Ram Gupta, Overseer, AW-1, he found big cracks in the corner ends of the shop and this fact also stood corroborated in the court inspection. In these circumstances, the report of the experrbeing relied upon the tenant, Ex.R-1, cannot be given much preference. Even in that report, much has come out for the benefit of the landlord. Gurdial Singh, RW-4 had also admitted that the back wall of the shop had fallen and was not in existence. In the inspection note of the Rent Controller, it has come that one pillar made of a big brick had been erected in the last room of the shop so as so give support to the ceiling and the ceiling could not remain intact in the absence of the back wall of the shop. When such is the condition of the shop, how it can be said that the demised premises or the building of which the demised premises is a part is safe and fit for human habitation. Seeing the condition of the building as a whole, it has been even admitted by Mr. Harpal Singh Gill, S.D.E. RW-6, expert examined by the tenant that the western wall of the first floor had gone out of plumb and this wall had left its vertical joint. The appellate authority rightly came to the conclusion that Mr. Gill has not examined the entire condition of the building and he has not specifically examined the back wall of the shop which had already collapsed and the ceiling of the back room which had the support of a pillar made of bricks. Mr. Gill was specifically cross-examined by the landlord and he could not contradict the suggestion of the landlord that if the back wall of the shop had fallen or not. In these circumstances, how the testimony of Mr. Gill and his report, Ex.R-1 can be relied upon or acted upon. Even otherwise, it appears that Mr. Gill had a soft corner for the tenant. He might have prepared this report at the instance of Ram Murti, Advocate, who is married to Joginder Pal (tenant''s sister). He was friendly with Ram Murti as both of them had been going to the same club. Mr. Gill also admitted that when he inspected the demised premises. He was accompanied by Ram Murti, Advocate, but in the report he has not made a mention that the demised premises were inspected in his presence. The appellate authority was also right in commenting that the landlord gave objections to the report of the Local Commissioner and those objections were not at all considered by the Rent Controller. I have made an independent assessment of both the reports given by Babu Ram Gupta, Overseer and Mr. Gill and the comments of the court which also visited the site. I am inclined to pick up and believe the report of Mr. Gupta besides the comments of the Rent Controller.

Faced with this difficulty, the learned counsel for the petitioner, then, submitted that the rent petition was filed in the year 1977 on the ground that the demised premises were unsafe and unfit for human habitation and still the building has not fallen and, therefore, it has to be inferred and presumed that the building is sound and safe. Also, it was stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the landlord himself wanted to occupy this building for the benefit of his son, who wanted to run a medical clinic and, in these circumstances, it should be readily inferred that the building and the demised premises is sound and fit for human habitation.

The arguments are devoid of any merit. If the building has not fallen or if the some repairs have been effected by the tenant to defeat the aforesaid provisions of law and the right of the landlord, it is no ground to accept the contentions of the tenant. As I have already stated above, it is not necessary on the part of the landlord to prove that the building can fall at any moment. The law Courts are supposed to examine the condition of the building and the demised premises on the date of the institution of the petitioner as to whether it has become unsafe or unfit for human habitation or not. This aspect of the case can be proved or disproved by oral as well as documentary evidence which may be led by the parties. The appellate authority rightly appreciated the evidence on the record and came to the right conclusion that the building and the demised premises have become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The Rent Controller fell in error in rejecting the rent petition.

It was lastly submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner should be given a reasonable time so that he may be able to make an alternative arrangement for his livelihood. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is earning his bread and butter by selling shoes, etc. in the demised premises and if he is ordered to be evicted straightaway, he will not be able to get an alternative accommodation in the modern times. He is paying a monthly rental of Rs. 60/- only and it will be difficult to get accommodation especially commercial accommodation in the main Bazar at Samrala. The counsel for the petitioner submitted and requested the court that at least three years time may be granted to the tenant so that he may be able to vacate the premises. This request of the petitioner was not accepted by the learned counsel for the respondents and she was not inclined to give time as proposed by the counsel for the petitioner and stated that as per the provisions of the Act, the Rent Controller could award maximum three months time. However, during the course of submissions, she gave an offer that the tenant may be given two years time so that he may be able to vacate the premises provided on the expiry of the time, the tenant shall deliver the actual vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlord or his legal heirs. It has also been contended by the counsel for the landlord that the tenant must give an undertaking to the Court that on the expiry of the time which may be allowed by the Court, the tenant shall deliver the possession only to the landlord or to his legal heirs and not to anybody else, this proposal was accepted by the counsel for the tenant. Also it was proposed by the counsel for the landlord that the tenant must clear all the arrears of rent within one month from today and the tenant shall further go on paying the agreed amount of rent by way of use and occupation and he "shall deposit such amount in the court by the 10th of each successive month and in case the tenant commits the default in clearing the arrears or commits default in the further payment of the amount by way of use and occupation then, in that eventuality, the landlord will be above to seek the eviction of the demised premises through execution. The stand of the counsel for the landlord-respondent is reasonable.

In these circumstances, I do not see any merit in this revision and dismiss the same. However, the tenant is granted 2-1/2 years time in interest of justice. On the expiry of this period, the tenant shall deliver the actual vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlord or his legal heirs, as undertaken by him through his counsel before this court. The tenant shall also pay all the arrears of rent within one month from the receipt of the copy of the order by depositing the same in the Court of the Rent Controller and he shall further go on paying the agreed amount of rent by way of use and occupation of the demised premises by the 10th of each successive month. In case, the tenant commits default in any of the above clauses, it will always be open to the landlord to file the execution proceedings in the executing court and taken the possession of the demised premises. In the interest of justice, there will be no order as to costs.

The net result in that the application under Order 41 Rule 27, C.P.C. and the revision stand dismissed.