Tota Ram vs Duli Chand and others

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

The landlords sought the ejectment of tenant Tota Ram from the demised premises which are a part of house No 2911 and shown in the blue colour in the site plan, Exhibit A-3, inter alia on the grounds that (1) the tenant was in arrears of rent for the last three years preceding the date of the eviction application besides the house-tax amounting to Rs. 1,980/ ; (ii) the house being in a dilapidated condition had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation; (iii) the landlords wanted to occupy the said house after re constricting the same and that (iv) the tenant had become a source of nuisance to the landlords because he did not allow them to use the two rooms in which the language of the landlords was lying. In the written statement, the tenant denied the monthly rent to be Rs. 50/- besides the house-tax and pleaded that the rate of rent for the demised premises was Rs. 12/- per month including house-tax and that he had been paying the same to the landlords at that rate. However, in order to avoid his ejectment from the premises, he tendered the arrears of rent, house tax etc. amounting to Rs. 616/- in the Court of the Rent Controller on the first date of hearing. The other allegations made in the eviction application were also controverted by him. The learned Pent Controller found that the rate of rent was Rs 12/- per month excluding house tax and not Rs. 50/- per month as claimed by the landlords. It was also found that the tenant was liable to pay the house tax in addition to the rent at the rate of Rs. 12/- per month, and that the tender of Rs. 616/- was not a legal one as the interest if calculated came to Rs. 134/- and not Rs. 100/- only which was paid by the tenant. Thus, tender was held to be short. It was further found that Tarlok Chand, applicant, required the premises bona fide for his own use and occupation. The other pleas raised on behalf of the landlords were negatived. Consequently, the eviction order was passed against the tenant. In appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller as regards the bona fide requirement of the landlords According to the Appellate Authority, the landlords had failed to prove by any positive evidence that there was any bona fide need on their part to occupy the house, in question However, the finding of the Rent Controller in regard to the short tender was maintained. According to the Appellate Authority, the interest, if calculated, came to Rs. 134/- and not Rs. 100/- as paid by the tenant. Thus, the eviction order passed against the tenant by the Rent Controller was maintained by it. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has filed this revision petition in this Court.

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that it has been wrongly found by both the authorities below that the tenant was liable to pay the house-tax besides the rent According to the Learned Counsel, the authorities below have erred in observing that no such plea was taken by the tenant in his written statement. Thus, the finding arrived at by the authorities below was vitiated It was further contended that under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, it was the duty of the Rent Controller to calculate the interest and since no interest was calcutated by him, the rent tendered at the rate of Rs. 12/- per month could net be held to be short. In any case, argued the Learned Counsel, the interest according to him, only came to Rs. 99.84, whereas the tenant paid Rs. 100/- as such. Besides, the eviction application was filed on January 12, 1978. The rent for the months of December, 1977 and January, 1978, had not fallen due till then. Since the tenant bad tendered the rent for these two months also, he was entitled to adjust that amount towards the interest due, if any. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the interest, according to his calculations, come to Rs. 146.34 and even if the amount of Rs 44 00 representing the house-tax etc is adjusted even then, the tender was short by Rs 2.34. Therefore the tenant was liable to be ejected from the demised premises.

After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties on this point, I am of the considered opinion that the whole approach of the authorities below in this behalf was wrong, illegal and improper. It has been wrongly observed by the Appellate Authority that the tenant has not specifically denied his liability to pay the house-tax From a perusal of paragraph 2 the written statement, it appears that it has been clearly stated therein that the monthly rent of the demised premises was Rs 12/- inclusive of house tax. There is no cogent evidence led on behalf of the landlords to prove that the tenant was liable to pay house tax besides the rent Admittedly, the premises were let out somewhere in the year 1973-74, when the house-tax was already levied on the demised premises. The landlords claimed the rent at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month, which plea was found to be false by both the Courts below. According to the tenant, he was paying rent at the rate of Rs. 12/- per month inclucive of house-tax. Under the circumstances, it was for the landlords to prove that the tenant was liable to pay the house-tax in addition to the monthly rent, which they have failed to prove by any cogent evidence. Thus, the findings of the authorities below in this behalf, that the tenant was liable to pay the house-tax in addition to the monthly rent of of Rs 12/-, are liable to be set aside. It is surprising that in the ejectment application, the landlord did not give any date from which the tenant was in arrears of rent The plea taken by them in this regard was that for the last three years, the tenant was in arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. Since the landlords did not give a specific date from which the tenant was alleged to be in arrears of rent and the rent paid for December, 1977 and January 1978, had not fallen due at the time of the filing of the eviction application, the amount of rent for two months and house-tax paid by the tenant could be adjusted towards the interest due. If the said amount is so adjusted, then according to the authorities below the interest calculated come to Rs. 134/ whereas the tenant had paid Rs 100/- +Rs. 44/- +Rs. 24/-. The calculations made by the Learned Counsel for the landlords in this Court were never accepted by the authorities below. It was for the Rent Controller to assess the interest on the amounts of the arrears of rent due, but in any case, even if this amount was not assessed at the time of the first hearing, even then, it was calculated later and was found to be Rs. 134/- only. If that is so, then it could not be successfully argued on behalf of the landlords that it could be taken to be Rs 146 34. Thus, under the circumstances, it cannot be held that the tender made on the first date of hearing was short in any manner. The findings of the authorities in this behalf are liable to be set aside.

Faced with this situation, the Learned Counsel for the landlords submitted that the learned Rent Controller rightly found that the landlords bona fide required the premisis for their own use and occupation, but that finding has been reversed in appeal arbitrarily and on surmises and conjectures by the Appellate Authority. I have gone through the statement of Tarlot Chand A W.-1. It does not inspire any confidence as to hold that his requirement was bona fide. Thus, the finding of the Appellate Authority in this respect could not be said to be improper or illegal in any manner as to be interfered with in the exercise of the revisionl jurisdiction.

Consequently, this revision petition succeeds and is allowed with costs. The eviction order passed against the tenant is set aside and the eviction application is dismissed.