RAMESH LAL Vs. PIARA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord-petitioner filed an application for ejectment of his tenant from the demised premises, inter alia, on the ground of non-payment of rent, since March, 1970 amounting to Rs. 1,400 at the rate of Rs. 40 per month. The application was dismissed by the Rent Controller as it came to the conclusion that the tenant-respondent was not in arrears of rent from March, 1970 to 31st December 1972. In appeal this finding of the learned Rent Controller has been affirmed. Feeling aggrieved against this, the present revision petition has been filed by the landlord-petitioner.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it has been wrongly held that it was for the landlord to prove that the tenant was in arrears of rent and this wrong approach renders the finding of fact arrived at by the Authorities below illegal and improper.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any force in this petition. The Rent Controller and as well as the appellate authority have discussed the whole evidence on the record and after appreciation of the same, have come to a firm finding that the tenant is not in arrears of rent as alleged by the landlord in his ejectment application. The landlord before filing the ejectment application issued notice, Ex. R.1. to the tenant. Admittedly no mention of any arrears of rent has been made therein. According to the tenant, no receipt was ever issued by the land-lord of the payment of the rent to him. Under these circumstances, if there were arrears, it must have found mention in the notice Ex. R. 1. The omission to mention in that notice goes a long way to prove the falsity of the claim made by the landlord. Apart from that, both the Authorities have gone into the matter and have believed the version of the tenant. This is a finding of fact and cannot be interfered with in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, this petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.