Mahesh Chandra Bamwal vs District and Sessions Judge and Others

T.P. Garg, J.—This is a tenants petition directed against the judgment of Small Causes Court, Roorkee, dated 29.4.1991 and the judgment dated 8.8.1991, passed by the District Judge, Hardwar (Annexures T and 2 to the petition respectively). The Petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 29.4.1991, passed by the Judge Small Causes Court, Roorkee, whereby he decreed the suit of the landlord, Respondent No. 3, for ejectment and arrears of rent against the Petitioner, and the order dated 8.8.1991, passed by the District Judge, Hardwar, confirming the same in revision.

Raghubir Narain, Respondent No. 3, filed a suit in the court of Judge Small Causes Court, Roorkee in the year 1987 alleging that he is the landlord of house No. 12 situate in Mohalla Hanuman Garhi, (Chetan Deo Kutia), Kankhal, district Hardwar. Mahesh Chandra Barnwal, the Petitioner, was a tenant in two rooms and one kitchen, besides bath-room and toilet, etc. on a monthly rent of Rs. 150 plus Rs. 5 as water tax per month. He had taken the premises on rent with effect from June, 1984. The rent for the Months of June and July. 1984 was paid in cash to the landlord. The landlord is employed as Professor in the State of Bihar and so his visits to his home-town, Kankhal, are occasional, on account of which the tenant was required to deposit the amount of rent in the S.B. A/C of the landlord in Punjab National Bank. The tenant deposited rent for the month of August, 1984 in S.B. A/C No. 2184 in the Punjab National Bank in the name of the landlord. Thereafter, he did not pay any rent despite having been asked to pay time and again. Since the tenant was in arrears of rent from 1.9.1984 to 31.7.1987, amounting to Rs. 5,250 besides electricity consumption charges amounting to Rs. 1,200, a notice dated 13.8.1987 was given to him whereby his tenancy was terminated within a period of 30 days. The tenant received the said notice on 20.8.1987, but he failed to comply with the same and hence the suit. The tenant was in arrears of rent, amounting to Rs. 5,495, with effect from 1.9J984 to 19.9.1987, besides electric consumption charges, amounting to Rs. 1,200, at the time of filing of the suit.

The tenant-Petitioner contested the suit and filed a written statement. While admitting his tenancy, the Petitioner denied the rate of rent to be Rs. 150 per month. It was pleaded that the rate of rent was only Rs. 50 per month and this amount includes water charges. It was pleaded that the Plaintiff never gave any receipt for the amount of rent paid to him. It was denied that any amount of rent for the month of August, 1984 was deposited by him. II was pleaded that the Plaintiff lives in the State of Bihar and occasionally visits Kankhal and recovers the amount of rent due; that the tenant has already paid the amount of rent till the month of March, 1987 ; that rent for the month of April, 1987 was sent through Money Order, but the landlord refused to accept it; that the rent for the month of April, May and June, 1987 was deposited in the court of Munsif, Hardwar, and so he was not in arrears of rent.

In his replication, the landlord has denied the averments made by the tenant in his written statement. It was, inter alia, pleaded that prior to Induction of the Petitioner as tenant in the demised premises, one Sri R.K. Chaturvedi, Cashier, Central Bank of India, Gurkul Kangri, Hardwar, was the tenant, paying rent at the rate of Rs. 125 per month, and, who used to deposit the amount of rent in his �1. B. A/C; that the said Sri Chaturvedi vacated the demised premises in the Month of May, 1984, after which the demised premises were given to the Petitioner on rent at the rate of Rs. 150 per month. It was denied that the tenant was not given the receipts in lieu of payment of rent.

On the pleadings of the parties, the Judge, Small Causes Court framed certain issues. The parties led evidences in support of their respective contentions. The learned Judge, Small Causes Court decreed the suit of the Plaintiff and directed the tenant to vacate the premises in dispute within a period of two months. A decree for recovery of Rs. 5,400. as arrears of rent and compensation for use and occupation, was also passed. The tenant filed a revision u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, which was heard by the learned District Judge, Hardwar, and who, vide his judgment dated 8.8.1991 dismissed the same and confirmed the findings and order of the Small Causes Court.

In the present petition, affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record before me.

So far as the question of default in payment of rent is concerned, the finding recorded by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court is a finding of fact, based on appraisal and consideration of the entire evidence and relevant material on record. In coming to his conclusions, he took into account the evidence led by the parties and the permissible inference of the same have been validly formed by the revisional court in the present proceedings. Therefore, there is no reason or ground to differ or interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below. I am fortified in my view by the authorities cites as Mohan and Ors. v. lllrd Additional District Judge, Varanasi and others 1995 (1) ARC 45 ; Wing Commander, Ashok Kumar Sahai v. Vlth Additional District Judge, Lucknow and Anr. 1995 (1) ARC 57 and Himmat Singh v. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Deoria and others 1993 ARC 531. The main question convassed in this petition and argued before me is that the premises in dispute was given on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month and not Rs. 150 per month and further that the Petitioner had been paying the same, but the landlord never gave any receipt. Further that in case the landlord had been issuing receipts, he must be having counterfoils of the same, but no such counterfoil has been produced by him showing that the rate of rent was Rs. 150 per month. This argument is altogether without merit. The Plaintiff has frankly admitted that he issued receipt for the amount of rent as and when it was paid to him by the tenant. From the overwhelming evidence on record, it is proved that the rate of rent was Rs. 150 per month and not Rs. 50 as alleged by the tenant. The Plaintiff has produced in evidence the Pass Book (27-Ga) of A/C No. 35/4 with the Central Bank of India, Kankhal, where the previous tenant, Sri R.K. Chaturvedi, had been depositing rent at the rate of Rs. 125 per month. This account seems to have been opened In the month of January, 1982 and deposits at the rate of Rs. 125 per month have been recorded in this account till May, 1984. The tenancy in favour of the Petitioner started from June, 1984. The Plaintiffs case is that the tenant paid him rent in cash for the months of June and July, 1984 and he was asked to deposit further rent in S. B. A/C. No. 2184 with the Punjab National Bank, Kankhal. He has produced in evidence the A/C. Slip No. 25-Ga whereby the Petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 150 Under his own signature, on 16.8.1984 in S.B. A/C No. 2184 with the Punjab National Bank, Kankhal, operated by the landlord. Thereafter, there is no entry of any such deposit in the said account. The Petitioner has not explained as to how and in what connection did he deposit the said amount in the Plaintiffs account Under his own signature, vide Bank A/c. Slip 25-Ga. The tenant has nowhere shown as to how and in what manner he made the payment of rent after August. 1984 till the date of filing of the suit at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Certainly, the tenant is a defaulter in making payment of rent and being thus in arrears of rent he is liable to be ejected. Both the courts below have rightly considered the entire evidence and relevant material on record before coming to the aforesaid conclusion and there are no reasons or ground to differ or to interfere with the same.

In the authority cited as Mani Nariman Daruwala alias Bharucha (deceased) through Lrs. and Ors. v. Phiroz Bhatena and others 1991 (2) ARC 145, it has been held that in the exercise of the jurisdiction Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of fact of an inferior court or Tribunal, if there was no evidence to justify such a conclusion, or, if no reasonable person could possibly have come to the conclusion which the court or Tribunal, which has come or, in other words, it is a finding which was perverse in law. Except to the limited extent so indicated, the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of. fact. Applying the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in this authority, I am unable to persuade myself to hold that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Small Causes Court and the revisional court suffer from such an infirmity or are perverse so as to justify interference with the said finding Under Article 227 of the Constitution. Both the courts below have held that the rate of rent was Rs. 150 per month and the tenant being a defaulter, the application filed by the landlord deserved to be allowed and rightly so.

In view of the foregoing, there being no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed and the stay order dated 22.8.1991, granted by this Court, is hereby vacated. The Petitioner is given three months'' time to vacate the demised premises and hand over vacant possession of the same to the landlord.

Under the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.