BANT SINGH AND ORS. Vs. RAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed on behalf of the landlord-petitioners against the order of the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, dated 27th October, 1973, whereby the appeal of the tenant was accepted and the order of the Rent Controller, directing the ejectment of the tenant was set aside.

(2.) The rented premises consist of a shop, which is part of the residential building. It was rented out on a monthly rent of Rs. 35/- on 19th July, 1977, and a rent deed was writter. Gajjan Singh was the original landlord who died in the year 1970 and after his death the present petitioners, who are his daughters and a son, filed the present application for ejectment, on the ground of non-payment of rent and also on the ground that the premises were being used for residential purposes, which was against the terms of his tenancy. The application was contested on behalf of the tenant. According to him, the rent was due from 20th August 1970 instead of 20th August, 1967 and the same was tendered on the first date of hearing, but the landlord refused to accept the same. On the other ground, it was stated that it is not against the terms of the tenancy. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues : -

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the Appellate Authority has set aside the order of the Rent Controller illegally and improperly. According to the learned counsel, in the absence of the receipt for payment of rent, the mere statement of the tenant could not be accepted. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any merit in this petition. The case of the tenant throughout has been that the landlord never issued any receipt to him for payment of rent. In the absence of any receipt, the only evidence could be the statement of the tenant. The story has been believed by the Appellate Authority and after going through the evidence, I do not find any illegality of impropriety therein. It is a question of fact which cannot be interfered in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. As regards the other ground of ejectment, admittedly, the tenant is still doing the business of washerman for which the premises were taken on rent. Of course, along with that he has also started living therein. Moreover, the rent-note having not been produced, it could not be said that it was one of its terms that in no circumstances, the washerman could reside in the room obtained by him on rent. Admittedly, the rented premises area a part of the residential building and the tenant is doing the business of washerman. Under these circumstances, the finding of the Appellate Authority is correct.