KHEM CHAND Vs. SOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's revision petition against the decision of Shri R.P. Gaind, the Appellate Authority, Kapurthala, who allowed the appeal of the landlord and ordered the ejectment of the tenant.

(2.) Sohan Singh purchased the land in dispute from Mohinder Singh, Khem Chand, Petitioner, was already a tenant on the same. However, there is a dispute between the parties as to whether the rent for this rented land was Rs. 4/- per month or Rs. 8/- per month. Sohan Singh filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act for the ejectment of Khem Chand on two grounds - (i) the tenant had not paid the rent; (ii) the landlord needed the premises for his personal use. The second ground was negatived both by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. The Rent Controller did not find merit in the first ground also and dismissed the ejectment application. The appeal filed by Sohan Singh, landlord, succeeded before the Appellate Authority. In appeal, the findings of the Rent Controller on this aspect of the case has been assailed. The Appellate Authority relying on two admissions made by Khem Chand, the tenant, in previous litigation, came to the conclusion that the rent of the demised premises was Rs. 8/- per month and not Rs. 4/- per month, as contended by the tenant. Since the rent was not deposited at the rate of Rs. 8/- per month, he ordered the ejectment of the tenant.

(3.) Mr. H.S. Kathuria, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vigorously argued that the findings of the Appellant Authority are clearly based on misrepresentation of facts. He has contended that all what the tenant-petitioner had averred in the plaint, Exhibit A/1, in previous suit filed by him against Sohan Singh for injunction was that he had taken the whole of the plot belonging to Mohinder Singh, the previous landowner, at the rate of Rs. 8/- per month, about 15 years prior to the filing of that suit. This reference of Rs. 8/- per month was not only to the plot in dispute but this rent covered whole of the plot. I have perused the plaint. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel, it would be necessary to reproduce paragraph 1 of the plaint.