RAM KARAN Vs. AMRIT LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The impugned order of the Appellate Authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act is sought to be challenged in this revision petition on the ground that the order of the Rent Controller has been erroneously reversed. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred in detail to the evidence produced on the record and wanted me to reappraise the same. He contended that the entries in the house-tax register of the Municipal Committee are not the relevant piece of evidence and for this contention he relied on Jagan Nath v. Smt. Shanti Devi,1976 RCR 341. None of these contentions, however, has any substance.

(2.) So far as the reappraisal of the evidence is concerned, it has been repeatedly held that this Court is not competent to do so in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the Act. As regards the entries in the house-tax register all that was decided in the case cited above was that those are not sufficient to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, assessment of the annual value of a house or a shop is done by the authorities under the statute and entries made in the register are certainly relevant to show at what amount the annual value was assessed. If the shop in dispute was assessed for the purposes of house tax at Rs. 1,800/- it is unimaginable that the shop could be let out at a party rent of Rs. 20/- per month. There is, consequently no infirmity legal or otherwise which could warrant interference with the finding of the appellate authority.

(3.) This petition is consequently dismissed, but without any order as to costs. The tenant is, however, allowed three months time to vacate the shop provided he deposits all the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month including these three months within one month from today.