LOK NATH Vs. KHANAYA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 11.11.1980, Khanaya Lal filed an application for ejectment under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against his tenant Lok Nath on one of the grounds that he was in arrears of rent with effect from 1.1.1970 at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. Several other grounds were also raised. The landlord's case was that from the very beginning this was the rate of rent. The tenant contested the ejectment petition and pleaded that Rs. 10/- per month was the rate of rent and that he had already paid rent up to 31.10.1980 and tendered rent for the months of November and December, 1980, on the first date of hearing along with costs and interest. The Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord failed to prove all the four grounds on which ejectment was sought. He disbelieved the landlord's statement that the rate of rent was Rs. 50/- per month and that it was due from 1.1.1970 and relied upon the statement of tenant and his witnesses that the rate of rent was Rs. 10/- per month beside placing reliance on receipt Exhibit R. 1 which showed that Rs. 20/- were paid as rent for two month up to 30.5.1958 and the receipt was dated 4.5.1958. The tenant was a Dhobi who was living in the premises in dispute and was also carrying on his business therein, whereas the landlord was an Income-tax assessee. The Rent Controller further observed that the landlord could produce his account books of income tax returns to show that he had not received rent up to 31.10.1980 and that it was due from 1.1.1970 but the landlord failed to produce the same. Accordingly, the ejectment petition was dismissed. On appeal by the landlord, the Appellate Authority affirmed the findings recorded by the Rent Controller that Rs. 10/- per month was the rate of rent and that the receipt Exhibit R. 1 related to the demised premises and not to some other premises as stated by the landlord, but concluded that since the tenant has not produced any receipt showing payment of rent from 1.1.1970 to 31.10.80 the tenant was in arrears of rent and since he failed to pay the same along with interest and costs on the first date of hearing in the order of ejectment was passed. This is tenant's revision against the aforesaid order.

(2.) SHRI Ashwani Kumar Chopra at the outset has urged that on two material points the landlord has been disbelieved, by both the Courts below, namely, that the rent is Rs. 10/- per month and that the receipt Exhibit R. 1 relates to the demised premises and the other grounds of ejectment pleaded by landlord were not substantiated. From this inference is sought to be drawn that the statement of the landlord that he had not been paid rent from 1.1.1970 till 31.10.1980 should not have been believed and instead reliance should have been placed on the statement of the tenant that he had paid rent up to 31.10.1980 and been paying rent earlier in the presence of some of the witnesses who have been produced, without obtaining receipts and in this behalf the Rent Controller was right and the Appellate Authority seriously erred in reversing the well considered order of the Rent Controller. Reliance is placed on the decision of J.V. Gupta, J. in Mehar Singh and another v. Tilak Raj 1981 (2) R.C.R. 657.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that on peculiar facts of this case, the Rent Controller was right in believing the statement of the tenant with regard to the period for which rent was due specially when both the authorities below have concurrently held that the landlord made a false claim and made false statement that the rent was Rs. 50/- per month and that receipt Exhibit R. 1 did not relate to the premises in dispute but to some other premises. Apart from this, three more grounds of ejectment were pleaded one of which was that the premises were let out for the purpose of residence, whereas the tenant started doing washerman's work (Dhobi's work) also, but failed to prove the same. On a these facts, the decision of J.V. Gupta, J. is clearly attracted. When the landlord is being disbelieved on several material points. I do not find any justification for sifting his statement in such a manner so as to believe him with regard to the period for which arrears of rent are due. It is true that there is no estoppal against the statue and if really the rent is not paid for several years, the landlord would be entitled to claim eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent. But in this case, as rightly done by the Rent Controller, I am also inclined to place reliance on the statement of the tenant that he had paid rent upto 31.10.1980.