SATNARAIN Vs. JAIN RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present second appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the Rent Controller Tribunal dated 13th January, 1987 wherein the Tribunal modified the order of the Additional Rent Controller and held that the rate of rent which was to be paid by the respondent-tenant was @ Rs. 55.00 and not Rs.l25.00 as was held by the Additional Rent Controller, who passed an order under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the respondent has contended that this appeal does not raise any question of law. Rate of rent is not a question of law. I find no force in the argument of learned Counsel for the respondent as it was the basis on which the Rent Control Tribunal had set aside the finding of the Additional Rent Controller which from bare perusal of records seems untenable. The first order for deposit of rent was passed by the Additional Rent Controller on 5th July, 1985 under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. In that order it was held that the monthly rent was Rs. 125.00 per month. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal. The appeal of the respondent was dismissed on 6th August, 1985. Final order was passed on 18th September, 1986. On the basis of writing marked 'A' in the deposition before the Additional Rent Controller, the appellant who appeared as AW-1 deposed that the rate of rent was Rs. 125.00 per month. On mark 'A' it was admitted by the respondent that it was his signature. Mark 'A.' was to the following effect: Main Jairam Kirayadar Ke Roop Me Makan Malik Brij Narain Sharma Wa Sat Narain Sharma Ke Makan Me 125.00 Rupee Mahavar Ek Sal Ke Liye Liya Hai. Agar Meri Taraf Se Koi Galti Hogi To Mai Makan Chhor Doonga. Mane 23.2.1977 Se Liya Hai.

(3.) When the respondent had admitted the signature at mark 'A.', there was no reason not to believe the testimony of AW-1 in conjunction with Mark 'A' on which the respondent, admittedly, signed in acceptance thereof. The law with regard to appreciation of evidence is well settled. The Appellate Court, even if it comes to a different finding with regard to the appreciation of evidence, will not lightly set aside the finding based on the evidence arrived at by the Trial Court. The Rent Control Tribunal has lightly set aside the finding of the Trial Court on the basis of the deposition/statement of Bengali Babu who appeared as RW-2. The presumption on the part of the Rent Control Tribunal that rent might have been paid in front of RW-2 is not supported by the testimony of RW-2. Rent Control Tribunal fell in error in supposing that it may be that rent was paid in the presence of Bengali Babu when there was no such suggestion either in examination-in-chief or in cross examination of said witness. I set aside the finding of the Rent Control Tribunal and restore the order of the Additional Rent Controller.