Ujjagar Singh vs Sadhu Ram

R.L. Anand, J.—This is a landlord''s revision petition and has been directed against the order dated 16.11.1999 passed by the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, who affirmed the order dated 31st October, 1998 passed by the Rent Controller who dismissed the petition of the petitioner u/s 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter called the ''Act'') as applicable to Chandigarh.

Brief facts of the case are that Shri Ujjagar Singh filed a petition u/s 13 of the act against Shri Sadhu Singh on the ground of non-payment of rent and it was alleged by the petitioner that he rented out the premises to the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 700/- per month excluding water and electricity charges. The respondent-tenant is It-able to be evicted from the demised premises, as he had neither paid the rent nor tendered the arrears of rent w.e.f. March, 1990 in spite of the fact that he had served a legal notice upon the tenant to pay the arrears of rent.

Notice of the petition was given to the respondent-tenant, who filed the written statement denying the allegations. According to (he tenant, the premises was given on rent in the year 1964 on a monthly rent of Rs. 33/- and later on the rent was enhanced to Rs. 100/- per month. On merits, the stand of the tenant was that he has paid the arrears of rent up to July 1997. The petitioner had claimed excessive rent, he has already paid Rs. 6600/- at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month. The excess rent paid by him might be adjusted against the future rent. The demised premises was never rented for Rs. 700/-per month. He had already deposited an excess amount of rent which was liable to be refunded to him. On the other hand, the tenant prayed for the dismissal of the rent petition. The petitioner filed a rejoinder, who denied the allegations of the respondent.

On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues:-

Whether the rent tendered is short invalid? OPP

Whether the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands? OPR

Relief.

The parties led evidence in support of their case and on the conclusion of the proceedings the learned controller decided issue No. 1 against the petitioner and held that the rate of rent was Rs. 100/- per month. Issue No. 2 was also decided against the landlord. Resuttantly, vide order dated 31.10.1998 the learned Rent Controller, the landlord field an appeal before the appellate authority, who again dismissed the appeal for the reasons given in paragraphs 12 to 21 of the impugned judgment dated 16.11.1999.

Still not satisfied with the finding of the Learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority the present revision has been filed.

I have heard Sh. Jagdish Marwaha, Advocate, on behalf of the appellant and with his assistance, have gone through the record of the case.

It is a revision. The scope of the revision to interfere with regard to concurrent findings of fact is very limited until and unless there is a total non-appreciation of evidence, the revisional Court cannot interfere in the well reasoned orders of the Rent Controller and the first Appellate Authority.

The case set up by the petitioner in the trial Court was that the demised premises was rented out to the respondent at the rate of Rs. 7007- per month. Is it so, this was the sole point for determination by the Rent Controller as well as by the Appellate Authority. In this case, petitioner-landlord is relying upon the oral testimony of the witnesses. There is no documentary evidence on the record to suggest that the rate of rent was ever increased from Rs. 300/- to 700/- p.m. It has not been proved on record that the rent was ever increased from Rs. 3007- per month, as alleged by the petitioner. There was no difficulty on the part of the landlord to get written receipt from the tenant if the rent was voluntarily enhanced from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 300/- or from Rs. 300/- to Rs. 700/-. There is no house tax entry even to show that the rate of rent was Rs. 300/- or Rs. 700/- as relied upon by the landlord.

Faced with this difficulty, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment reported in Smt. Pushpawati v. Sh. Kaka Singh 1991(1) R.L.R. 117 (P&H) and submitted that the onus was upon the tenant to prove that the rate of rent was Rs. 300/- per month. I have gone through the facts of the case. These are totally distinguishable. The landlord cannot take the advantage of the omissions of the tenant if he has not been able to prove any receipt with regard to the rate of rent of Rs. 100/- or so.

In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the revision petition nor do I want to interfere with the concurrent findings of the fact of the Rent Controller as well as of the first Appellate Court. Dismissed.