MOHD. FIAZ Vs. MOHD. GULZAR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tenant is in revision against the orders of the Courts below by which he has been ordered to be evicted on the ground of non-payment of rent.

(2.) The landlord filed eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') in respect of demised premises (shop), which was allegedly rented out in February 1994 at a monthly rent of Rs. 500/- with increase of Rs. 25/- every year. It was alleged that the tenant has not paid the rent of the demised premises w.e.f. 1.2.1996 though he had paid the rent @ Rs. 500/- per month upto 31.1.1996. Thus, it was alleged that the tenant is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.2.1996 along with house tax and the landlord is entitled to recover interest and cost of rent due and on this ground alone, eviction of the tenant was sought. In reply, the averments made in para No. 3 of the eviction petition was denied and it was alleged that the tenant has paid the rent along with house tax upto June 1999 as per receipts, which were allegedly executed by the landlord. The rent petition was filed on 17.5.1999 and the tenant had alleged that he had paid the rent upto June 1999, meaning thereby he totally denied the arrears of rent, which according to him had already been paid against the receipts issued by the landlord. The landlord filed replication denying the averments made in the written statement and reiterated the rent petition. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed following issues:

(3.) Issues No. 1 & 2-A were dealt with together as the most material issues in the lis. The learned Rent Controller decided both the issues in favour of the landlord and against the tenant observing that ''on the other hand, the evidence of the expert shows that the rent receipts do not bear the thumb impressions of petitioner and it seems that the same have been forged and fabricated by the respondent afterwards. Since the respondent has failed to show that he has paid the rent of the shop in dispute w.e.f. 1.2.1996 he is liable to be ejected from the premises in dispute, on the ground of non-payment of rent''. It is also an admitted fact that the learned Rent Controller had granted opportunity to the tenant on his application to produce expert to prove the rent receipt but despite that he did not examine the expert in support of his case. The Appellate Authority also concurred with the order of the learned Rent Controller. It has also dealt with the argument raised by the tenant that the learned Rent Controller should have granted opportunity to make the payment of rent in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan and others v. M/s. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and others , 2002 131 PunLR 370 by observing that it is not a case where the tenants have disputed the rate of rent or the period for which the rent is to be paid rather it is a case where they had disputed the claim of rent on the ground that the same has already been paid against the receipts issued by the landlord. Thus, it was held that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan and others is wholly inapplicable and dismissed the appeal.