MANOJ KUMAR Vs. JAI PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is in revision against the orders of the Courts below by which ejectment petition filed by the landlord has been allowed on the ground of non-payment of rent.

(2.) IN brief, the landlord had filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short "the Act"] against the petitioner and his brother Vijay Kumar alleging therein that they were inducted as tenants in the demised premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/- by way of a rent note dated 01.07.1991. It is further alleged that the petitioner/tenant and his brother have neither paid nor tendered the rent w.e.f. 02.01.1994 to 31.05.1994 @ Rs. 480/- per month and from 01.06.1994 up to date @ Rs. 520/- per month, as per the terms and conditions of the rent note. In reply, rate of rent, commencement of tenancy and execution of rent note were admitted, but being in arrears of rent was denied. It was alleged that the landlord has already received rent of Rs. 4150/- for the period from 01.06.1993 to 01.01.1994 paid on 06.06.1994 and Rs. 10000/- for the period from August 1992 to April 1995 paid on 05.08.1992 against receipt, which was decided by the Court of Shri B.S. Mangat, Rent Controller, Amritsar on 09.12.1995.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , on the first date of hearing, no tender was made by the petitioner and his brother for the rent demanded by the landlord w.e.f. 02.01.1994 to 31.05.1994 because their specific stand was that they had already paid the entire rent for the period in question. After appraisal of evidence, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that even if the petitioner had claimed to have paid Rs. 10,000/- as advance rent for the period from August 1992 to April 1995, i.e. for the period of 32 months, @ Rs. 480/- per month, the rent would come to Rs. 15,360/-. Hence, there were arrears of rent which made the petitioner liable for ejectment and the petitioner and his brother were ultimately ordered to be ejected by the learned Rent Controller on 02.05.1998, which was approved by the learned Appellate Authority vide its order dated 22.02.2001 by dismissing the appeal.