Mange Ram vs Kirori Mal Jai Bhagwan and Others

V.S. Aggarwal, J.—The present revision petition had been filed by Mange Ram, hereinafter described as "the petitioner". It is directed against the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority, Sonepat, dated 9.4.1983. The learned Appellate Authority had set aside the order of the learned Rent Controller and in this process dismissed the eviction petition of the petitioner.

The relevant facts are that the petitioner had filed eviction petition against the respondents with respect to the shop in question. It was asserted that the agreed rent is Rs. 150/- per month and that the tenant has sublet the premises without the consent in writing of the petitioner. In addition to that, arrears of rent were claimed from 1.4.1997 to 29.2.1980.

The petition for eviction was contested. It was alleged that the same has been filed only to put pressure on the respondents. It was the plea of the respondents that the agreed rent is Rs. 50/- per month and that they were not in arrears of rent. Rent for the month of February and March, 1980. only was admitted to be due. It was pointed out that the petitioner and his father had been collecting the rent. No rent receipt, however, had been issued. It was denied that the property in question had been sublet.

The learned Rent Controller framed the issues and held that the agreed rent was Rs. 50/- per month. It was further held that the ground of subletting has not been established but concluded that arrears of rent were due and on the said ground order of eviction was passed.

Aggrieved by the same, appeal was preferred by both the parties. The learned Appellate Authority found that the agreed rent was Rs. 50/- per month and the arrears of rent had been paid. It was further held that the ground of eviction that the property has .been sublet had not been established.

As against the said order, present revision petition has been filed.

In the present revision petition, the sole controversy was as to if the ground of eviction on non-payment of rent was available or not. There was no dispute that the agreed rent was Rs. 50/- per month. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, urged that the arrears were due which have not been tendered and, therefore, the respondent-tenant was liable to evicted on the said ground.

The question as to whether arrears had been paid or not is a finding of fact. Under sub-section (6) of Section 15 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short "the Act"), this Court would only interfere if there is illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority. Once the evidence has been considered and a proper decision arrived at, this Court will not reappraise the evidence and that interference by this Court would be travelling beyond the scope of the provisions of sub-section(6) of Section 15 of the Act and patently doing injustice to the plain language of the said provision. Only if the finding is absurd or not based on evidence, this Court would be competent to interfere therein.

On behalf of the respondent-tenant, reliance has been placed on the copies of Rokar Bahi entries Exhibit R-2 to R-7 and R-9 to R-19 to show that rent had been paid from 1.4.77 to 31.1.1980. Similar entries existed in the Khata Bahi Exhibit R-8, R-14 and R-20. Jai Bhagwan, RW4, had clearly stated that entries had been maintained in the regular course of the business. When entries had been made in the regular course of the business, then the same are relevant and co-related with other evidence would show that payment had been made.

On behalf of the petitioner, it was urged that the said entries could not have been read in evidence. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Lahore High Court in the case of Abdul Haq and Ors. v. Firm Shivji Ram-Khem Chand AIR 1922 Lah 338, wherein it was held that mere production of books of accounts without proof is not enough to charge a defendant with liability. It should be shown that they had been regularly kept in the ordinary course of business. That is not so in the present case. As concluded above, the account books have been maintained in the regular course of business.

Reliance has further been placed on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Vasireddi Seetharamaiah Vs. Srirama Motor Finance Corporation, Kakinada and Another, . Therein, it was held that when the entries made in the ledger are not supported by any receipt of payment or voucher, it would not establish that the amount as such had been paid. But this finding will not be a good precedent in the facts of the present case. A perusal of the cited judgment reveals that the statement of the witness was not found to be satisfactory. At one stage, he deposed that the amount was paid to the 1st defendant and later he stated that it was paid to one T.V. Ranga Rao. Ultimately, he admitted that there was nothing to show the payment to the 1st defendant. It was in this backdrop that the above findings were arrived at. It must follow that the cited decision was confined to its peculiar facts.

This Court in the case of Raj Kumar v. Ram Parkash and Ors.1982(2) AIRCJ 248, concluded that when entries in the Bahi have been produced to show the payment of rent, then it would be a relevant evidence.

In the present case, as already pointed out above and re-mentioned at the risk of repetition, entries in the Rokar Bahi and Khata Bhai have been produced. It is not shown that they were manipulated and were not maintained in the ordinary course of business. The learned Appellate Authority rightly acted upon the same to hold that payment had been proved. There is no ground to take a different view or to hold that the finding is erroneous.

For these reasons, the revision petition being without merit must fail and is accordingly dismissed.