Siri Ram vs Smt. Iqbal Kaur

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is tenant''s petition against whom eviction order was passed by both the authorities below.

The landlady, Iqbal Kaur sought the ejectment of the tenant Siri Ram from the shop in dispute inter alia on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent with effect from 1-8-1976 and that by his acts and conduct he has impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. The ejectment petition was filed on 5-2-1979 alleging that the shop in dispute was rented at the rate of Rs. 150/ per month. In addition to the rent, the tenant was also liable to pay house tax. It was farther pleaded that the tenant had removed the shutters from points ''AB'' and fixed the same at ''CB'' shown in site plan in Ex. A-4 which was Verandah and thus converted the same into a room.

In the written statement, the tenant pleaded that the rate of rent was Rs. 50/- per month and that he had also paid the rent till 12 1-1979. According to the tenant, the house tax was not part of the rent and the landlady was not entitled to recover the same. However, to avoid the ejectment, he tendered the arrears of rent as claimed but at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. This tender was made unconditional, but the same was accepted by the landlady under protest. The other allegations made in the ejectment application were also controverter. The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the rate of rent was Rs. 150/- per month and not Rs. 50/- per month as claimed by the tenant, and consequently the tender was found to be invalid It was farther found that the tenant has committed such acts which have materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. In view of these findings, eviction order was passed. In appeal, the learned appellate authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and thus maintained the eviction order. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has filed this petition in this Court. The case was heard earlier and after hearing the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner it was adjourned to find out the possibility of compromise between the parties, if any. However, no compromise was found possible.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that earlier another shop adjacent to the shop in dispute was rented to him in April, 1975, at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month Lateron, in place of the said shop, the present shop adjacent to the same was rented to him at a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- per month because certain additions were made therein. Thus, argued the Learned Counsel, the findings of the authorities below in this behalf that the rate of rent was Rs. 150/- per month was against the evidence on the record. According to the Learned Counsel, even the landlady showed the premises in dispute to be rented out at the rate of Rs. 50/ per month in the house tax register and paid the same at that rate. He particularly referred to the objection petition dated 2-1-1976 Ex. R-2 filed on behalf of the landlady before the Administrator, Municipality, Ludhiana, where certain admission were made by her.

I have gone through the relevant evidence on the record on this issue. After going through the same, I am of the opinion that both the views are possible on the evidence on the record. Though the landlady in her ejectment application has not stated that from what date the rent was increased from Rs. 50/ to Rs. 150/- yet in the evidence it has been proved that the increase was from 1-4-1976 but at the same time nothing has been brought on behalf of the tenant to prove that earlier the other shop adjacent to the shop in dispute was with him at the rate of Rs. 40/- and later on the rent was increased from Rs. 40/- to Rs. 50/-. It is the common case of the parties that no writing was executed at the time of increase of the rent either from Rs. 40/- to Rs. 50/-, or from Rs. 50/- to Rs. 150/-. According to the evidence of the tenant, the tenancy originally started from April, 1975 whereat from the evidence on the record it has been proved that the tenancy started from April, 1974. Of course, from the entries in the house tax register Ex. R-20 for the year 1976-77, the premises in dispute are shown to be in occupation of the tenant Siri Ram at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month but that does not conclude the matter. In any case, after considering the entire evidence on the record, it had been concurrently found that the rate of rent was Rs. 150/- per month and the tenant failed to tender the same on the first date of hearing. Prima facie, it being a finding of fact could not be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction. Though on the evidence it could be held otherwise also yet this will not provide a ground or justification for interference in revisional jurisdiction. Once it is so found, since the tender was made at the rate of Rs. 50/-, the tenant was liable for ejectment on the ground of non payment of arrears of rent, on the first date of hearing. In view of this finding the other finding as to whether the tenant by his acts and conduct has impaired the value and utility of the demised premises or not becomes redundant though it was contested on behalf of the Petitioner.

As a result of the above discussion, this petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the tenant is allowed 3 months time to vacate the premises provided all the arrears of rent if any and the advance rent of 3 months is deposited in the Court of the Rent Controller within one month.