C THANGASWAMY NADAR Vs. PAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition filed by the tenant is directed against the concurrent finding of both the Courts below that the tenant has committed wilful default in the payment of rent for the period from July, 1979 till the institution of the proceedings for eviction against him. Though initially the petition for eviction was filed on several grounds, we are only concerned with the case with the ground of wilful default.

(2.) THE cases of the tenant was that for the premises in the occupation of the tenant which were originally let out by the original owner at the rate of Rs. 40 per month, the rent came to be increased to Rs. 80 per month in 1974 from Rs. 50 per month which was the rent paid in 1966. THE application for eviction was filed some time in 1980 and the allegation was that for a period of one year, the tenant had not paid rent. THE tenant's case was that the rent payable was only Rs. 40 per month and he has paid the rent without any default. He claimed that the landlord issued receipts only in 1968 and thereafter the landlord stopped issuing receipts. Rent was paid upto April, 1980, according to the tenant.

(3.) SO far as the merits are concerned, the findings which are sought to be challenged are really findings of fact. Both the Courts below had before them the evidence of petitioner No. 3 and the tenant. The tenant's case that rent was Rs. 40 only has been rejected on the ground that there is no proof that the rent was only Rs. 40. As a matter of fact, it is difficult to see how even receipts Exhibits B-1 and B-2 which are dated 7-10-1967 and 12-11-1968 could have been admitted in evidence. Those receipts purport to have been executed by the original owner of the property. Undoubtedly, the said original owner is now dead, but his son was put in the witness box. The son examined himself as P. W. 2. While he was in the witness box, it was for the tenant to put the receipts to him and have the receipts proved by identifying the signature of the person who was alleged to have issued those receipts. As long as those signatures on the two receipts are not proved, the mere production of the receipts by the tenant does not establish the fact that the tenant had paid rent only at the rate of Rs. 40 per month and the landlord had accepted the rent at that rate. Ex. B-1 and B-2 are therefore to be ignored. The position before the Rent Control authorities therefore was that the tenant had failed to prove that the rent was Rs. 40. The only other case put forward before the Rent Control authorities was that the rent, originally fixed, was increased from time to time. SOme support was drawn for the fact that the rent was increased to Rs. 80 from the basis on which the property tax was levied. The enhanced assessment showed that rent was increased though it does not show the extent of the increase. Now admittedly ex. A-1 is the counterfoil of a receipt dated 6-6-1966 which shows that rent was paid by the tenant at Rs. 50 per month. The counterfoil of the receipt with the landlord is signed by the tenant. Therefore, unless the tenant establishes that the recitals in the counterfoil are incorrect, the correctness of the statement made in the receipt cannot be doubted. Exs. A-1 to A-3 which are dated 6-6-1966, 13-4-1966 and 12-5-1966 respectively are all counterfoils. The minimum that the tenant could have done was to produce his part of the receipt dated 6-6-1966. If there was any disparity between the counter-foil dated 6-6-1966 and the other part of the receipt in the possession of the tenant, all the three receipts Exs. A-1 to A-3 could have been rejected. The tenant, however, has not chosen to produce his part of the receipt dated 6-6-1966. This receipt shows that Rs. 50 was the rent which again falsifies the tenant's version that rent was Rs. 40 in 1968.