RAVI AHUJA Vs. RAM LEELA COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition filed under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrict Act, 1949 challenging concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below that the tenant-petitioner has been in arrears of rent. The execution of the Rent Note Ex.A-1 has been proved on record which stipulates that the tenant-petitioner had agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month. The Courts below have placed reliance on the statement made by Mangal Sain Deed Writer, AW1, who scribed the Rent Note and Ram Dhan Vashisht, AW2. The tenant-petitioner has also admitted his signatures on the Rent Note. The plea taken by the tenant-petitioner with regard to concealment of facts concerning receipt of rent and security amount has been rejected and it has been found by both the Courts below that he is in arrears of rent. The following excerpts from the judgment of the Appellate Authority would establish the above mentioned factual position beyond any doubt and the same reads as under :

(2.) WHEN the petition came up for consideration before this Court on 8.7.2004, learned counsel for the respondent made a very fair offer that the petitioner may deposit the arrears of rent at the rate determined by the Courts below and keep on paying the same by the 10th of every month. He further stated that in the eventuality of payment of arrears of rent and undertaking that the tenant-petitioner would keep on paying the rent by the 10th of every month, his petition might be allowed by setting aside his ejectment from the demised premises. He had further submitted that the tenant-petitioner would be continued and accepted as a tenant in the demised premises. The offer made by the landlord-respondent was not accepted and an argument was raised by the tenant-petitioner that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporations, 2002(1) RCR(Rent) 514 (SC) : (2002-2)131 PLR 370 (SC) : 2002(5) SCC 440, the order of ejectment deserved to be quashed as no opportunity for depositing the arrears of rent was offered to the petitioner. However, this Court on 2.8.2004 called upon the petitioner to pay the arrears of rent at the rate determined by the Courts below. The arrears were required to be paid by 7.9.2004 and the opportunity to deposit the arrears was granted in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra). The aforementioned order reads as under :

(3.) FOR the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.