LUXMI Vs. SUSHILA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant-petitioner has approached this Court under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Restriction Act, 1949 (in short "the Act") by way of instant revision petition impugning order dated 18.10.2003 passed by the appellate authority whereby she was ordered to be evicted on the ground of non-payment of rent under Section 13(2) (i) of the Act.

(2.) The landlady-respondent who was owner of the shop in dispute and the petitioner was a tenant under her at a monthly rent of Rs. 900/- per month, filed a petition for ejectment of the tenant-petitioner from the demised premises on two grounds, namely, (i) non-payment of arrears of rent from December, 1995, and (ii) the shop in dispute was required for her personal necessity. The tenant-petitioner filed reply to the ejectment petition pleading that she was tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 350/- per month and not Rs. 900/-. She had sent Rs. 700/- to the respondent as rent for the months of June and July 2001 through money order but she refused to accept the said money order. According to the tenant, there was another shop which was previously in his possession and she left the said shop in the year 1998 and in lieu of that shop, the tenant was given the shop in question on rent @ Rs. 350/- per month. The other averments made in the petition were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the ejectment petition was made. From the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues:-

(3.) The Rent Controller on appreciation of evidence led by the parties while adjudicating issue No.1 came to the conclusion that the rate of rent of the demised premises was Rs. 350/- per month and decided the issue in favour of the tenant and against the landlady. While deciding issue No.2 against the landlady, it was recorded that the assertion of the landlady that the rent was not paid from December, 1995 to October, 1998 was not acceptable and the tender of rent by the tenant from November 1998 to May 2001, when she appeared through a counsel on 22.5.2001 amounting to Rs. 12,250/- (Rs. 10,850/- on account of rent @ Rs. 350/- per month for 31 months, Rs. 868/- as interest and Rs. 500/- as costs) Rs. 32/- in excess was paid. However, as no evidence was led by the landlady regarding the requirement of shop in dispute for her own use and occupation, issue No.3 was decided against her. Under issue No.4, the petition was held to be maintainable as no arguments were addressed by the parties on the said issue. Accordingly, the Rent Controller vide judgment dated 23.5.2003, dismissed the ejectment petition.