DALIP SINGH Vs. GURDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the landlord who was unsuccessful in obtaining a decree for ejectment of the respondent from the tenanted premises from the learned Rent Controller and also the learned Appellate Authority. Both the Courts negatived the plea raised by him that he required the premises for personal bonafide necessity. At the trial, the non-payment of Tent was also raised as a plea for ejectment of the respondent. The averment made by the petitioner was that the rent was payable at the rate of Rs. 700/- per month. Against it, the plea raised by the respondent tenant was that the agreed rate of rent of Rs. 450/- per month. Both the Courts recorded a concurrent finding that rate of rent payable for the tenanted premises was Rs. 450/- per month.

(2.) Insofar as the controversy about the rate of payable rent is concerned, the finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller and also the Appellate Authority deserves concurrence. Insofar as the evidence adduced by the petitioner is concerned, it consists of his testimony as AW-2 and testimony of AW-1 Tara Singh. Insofar as the AW-1 Tara Singh is concerned, he nowhere owned up the averment made by the petitioner that oral tenancy had come into being in his presence. The petitioner also did not name Tara Singh as a person who was present at the time of oral tenancy was agreed upon. In the course of the petition, there is no reference to any person who may have been present at the time of oral tenancy was agreed upon. However, in the course of the replication, there is a precise mention that oral tenancy had come into being in the presence of Sukhwinder Singh and Bhupinder Singh. Both the aforementioned person were not examined by the petitioner at the trial. Infact, Bhupinder Singh was examined by respondent as RW-2 who supported the version of the respondent only that the rent was agreed upon at the rate of Rs. 450/- per month. In the light thereof, I have no reservations in upholding the finding recorded by both the Courts that rent for the tenanted premises was payable at the rate of Rs. 450/- per month.

(3.) Insofar as the other premise on the basis whereof ejectment was applied for (and granted) is concerned, both the Courts negatived petitioner's plea. In my considered view, that finding, concurrent though, deserves invalidation. The reasons therefore are as under: