BISHAN SINGH Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bishan Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'the landlord') has filed the instant revision petition against the orders passed by both the Courts below, vide which the application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, filed by him against the respondent Om Parkash (hereinafter referred to as 'the tenant') has been dismissed. The landlord filed the ejectment application for eviction of the tenant from the demised premises, which is a shop, on the ground of non-payment of rent and on the ground that the tenant has impaired the value utility of the premises by damaging its floor. According to the landlord, the demised premises was rented out to the tenant at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month. Whereas the tenant alleged that the rate of rent of the demised premises is Rs. 75/- per month. After appearing before the learned Rent Controller, the tenant, on the first date of hearing, tendered the arrears of rent @ Rs. 75/- per month and contested the claim of the landlord that the rate of rent is Rs. 200/- per month. The learned Rent Controller, after considering and appreciating the evidence led by both the parties, held that the landlord has failed to prove the ground of impairing the value and utility of the demised premises by the tenant. Regarding rate of rent, it was held that the monthly rent of the demised premises was Rs. 75/- and the claim put forth by the landlord regarding the monthly rent of Rs. 200/- was found false. After recording these findings, the ejectment application filed by the landlord was dismissed. The learned Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal of the landlord and confirmed the aforesaid finding of the learned Rent Controller. Feeling aggrieved against the order passed by both the Courts below, the landlord has filed the present revision petition.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records of the case.

(3.) Admittedly, the tenancy was created orally. There is no rent note. It is not mentioned in the pleadings by the landlord as to when the shop was let out by him to the tenant. It is, however, the case of the landlord that initially the rate of rent was Rs. 75/-per month, which was subsequently increased to Rs. 200/- per month. The Courts below have held that only on the basis of the solitary statement of the landlord, it cannot be held that the rate of rent was increased from Rs. 75/- to Rs. 200/- in the year 1979 in a settlement which was arrived at in presence of one Girdhari Lal. The said Girdhari Lal was not produced as a witness by the landlord. On the other had, the tenant has appeared in the witness box and stated that the rate of rent was Rs. 75/- per month and it was never increased to Rs. 200/-. He proved on record Ex.R1 and Ex.R2, the entries from the house tax assessment register of the Municipal Committee for the years 1978-79 and 1982-83. These documents also reflect the monthly rent of the demised premises as Rs. 75/-. Both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact regarding the rate of rent.