AMRIK SINGH Vs. MOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed by Amrik Singh (hereinafter described as 'the petitioner') directed against the order of the learned Rent Controller, Tarn Taran dated 3.10.1988 and of the Appellate Authority, Amritsar dated 10.9.1990. The learned Rent Controller had passed an order of eviction against the petitioner which was upheld by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that respondents-landlord filed a petition for eviction against the petitioner asserting that the petitioner is a tenant in the suit premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. He has neither tendered nor paid the rent from 18.8.1983 to 18.8.1986. Besides that it was asserted that petitioner has made unauthorised additions and alterations in the premises without the consent in writing of the landlords. The petitioner admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant but has raised the plea that agreed rent is Rs. 15/- P.M. It was denied that the petitioner has made unauthorised additions and alterations in the premises. The learned Rent Controller had framed the issues and concluded that agreed rent is Rs. 15/- P.M. as alleged by the petitioner. However, the Controller held that petitioner has not tendered the rent in Court and thus was liable to be evicted. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred. The learned Appellate Authority held that there is no dispute about agreed rate of rent being Rs. 15/- P.M. It was further held that first date of hearing was when the matter had been adjourned to 22.7.1987. However, the Appellate Authority concluded that though the rent on that date was deposited after the respondents had left but costs had not been assessed. It was the duty of the petitioner to deposit the same and consequently on the first date of hearing when costs was not paid, the petitioner was liable to be evicted. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition had been preferred. 2. When the revision petition was listed for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. In these circumstances, this Court did not have the advantage of hearing the petitioner's learned counsel.

(3.) THE ground of eviction pertaining to the alleged non-payment of rent is envisaged under sub-section 2(i) of Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, it reads :-