JANG BAHADUR Vs. SHANTI RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I do not find any infirmity in the judgment passed by the Rent Controller which has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority. It has been categorically held that the petitioner was in arrears of rent and that the petition had been filed for claiming the rent for the period specified in the application. The plea of the petitioner is that the rent had been paid but in fact the receipts were never ever issued by the landlord. The onus to prove the payment of rent had been put on the petitioner but the same has not been discharged effectively by pleading and by bringing into evidence any cogent piece of evidence. I have perused the statement of the petitioner when he appeared as RW1 before the Rent Controller. In the examination-in-chief, nothing has been stated as to from what date the rent had been paid and the receipts had never been issued by he landlord. In the absence of any evidence it cannot be inferred the landlord had not issued the receipt despite the rent having been paid.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Kartar Singh v. Sohan Lal and others, 1987(1) RCR 36 to the effect that if the landlord is disbelieved qua the determination of the rate of rent, principally he should not be relied vis-a-vis the arrears of rent. I am afraid this judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case as in this case it is the case of the petitioner that rate of that had been Rs. 110/- but the landlord had claimed Rs. 250/-. The onus for determination of the rate of rent could not be discharged by the petitioner effectively and cogently. As a sequel thereto, the finding had been returned against the landlord and in favour of the petitioner. It does not make out a rule that if no receipt had been issued by the landlord his plea regarding payment of rent should be accepted. No merit. Dismissed.