MOHINDER SINGH Vs. MADAN LAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the landlord's appeal filed by special leave against an order of the High Court passed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, whereby the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the Rent Controller and the District Judge has been reversed and the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, confirmed by the Appellate Authority, on the ground available under clause (1) of sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 has been set aside.

(2.) The suit accommodation is a residential accommodation. According to the landlord, it was let out to the tenant with effect from 1st April, 1990 on a monthly rent of Rs. 900/-. The tenancy is oral. The tenant defaulted in payment ever since beginning, i.e., 1st April, 1990. On the date of the institution of petition for eviction, the tenant was in arrears up to the month of July, 1992. The tenant, on being put to notice, disputed the rate of rent as also the quantum of arrears. According to the tenant, the premises were taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month and the rent up to the month of July, 1992 was paid to the landlord. On the first hearing of the application, the Rent Controller assessed the cost of application at Rupees 50/. The tenant tendered an amount of Rs. 300/-, being the rent for the month of August, 1992 and Rs. 10/- by way of interest on the arrears of rent. The total amount of Rs. 360/- was tendered which was accepted by the landlord under protest and reserving his right to prosecute the petition for eviction. The Rent Controller found that the rate of rent was Rs. 300/- per month and not Rs. 900/- per month as alleged by the landlord. However, as to the period of non-payment, the Rent Controller found that the tenant was in arrears ever since 1st April, 1990. Inasmuch as the tender made by the tenant was insufficient the Rent Controller allowed the petition and directed the tenant to put the landlord in vacant possession of the tenancy premises within two months from the date of the order. This order was maintained in appeal. In the civil revision, preferred by the tenant, the quantum of arrears were disputed. The landlord did not lay any challenge to the finding of the Rent Controller as to the rate of rent. The High Court has reversed the finding arrived at by the authorities below on the quantum of arrears, feeling impressed by the submission that if the tenant would have been in arrears ever since 1st April, 1990, then the landlord would not have awaited for a period of little less than two-and-a-half years in initiating the proceedings. Two cheques issued by the tenant, one of which was a self-bearer cheque encashed by some other person, and the other one was a cheque which on the finding arrived at by the two authorities below was not referable to payment of rent, were taken into consideration by the High Court and relied on for reversing the finding of fact.

(3.) In our opinion, the High Court, exercising the revisional jurisdiction, could not have interfered with and upset the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the two authorities below, in the manner in which it has done. There is no finding recorded by the High Court that the finding of fact in issue before the High Court suffered from perversity or misreading or non-reading of the evidence. The order of reversal passed by the High Court cannot there be sustained. We have ourselves perused the orders of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. Having perused the same, we find that the evidence available on record has received the attention of both the authorities and has been rightly appreciated, followed by recording of findings, accompanied by reasons.