GURINDER SINGH Vs. KUNDAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for brevity, 'the Act') is directed against the judgment passed by both the Courts below directing ejectment of the tenant-petitioners from the demised premises. Both the courts below have concurrently found that the tenant-petitioners are in arrears of rent and that they have also purchased their own house. Therefore, they are liable to be ejected on those counts under Sections 13(2)(i) and 13(3)(a)(iv) of the Act respectively. The findings of the Appellate Authority are available in paragraph 13 of the judgment with regard to arrears of rent and the same read as under :

(2.) BOTH the Courts below have also concluded that there is relationship of tenant and landlord between Kundan Lal landlord-respondent and the tenant- petitioners. Overwhelming evidence has been discussed in paragraph 11 by the Appellate Authority showing that Kundan Lal has been the owner and landlord of the demised premises. The finding of the Rent Controller in that regard has also been upheld. The findings of the Appellate Authority based on the analysis of evidence read as under :

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel at some length, I am of the considered view that the findings recorded by both the Courts below are based on overwhelming evidence as is discernible from para 11 (supra) of the judgment of the Appellate Authority. It has been concurrently found that landlord- respondent Kundan Lal has been the owner of the tenanted premises. He has produced his father Phiraya La1 as PW1 and his vendor Kartar Singh as PW8. He has tendered in evidence correspondence between Phiraya Lal who has taken a self-harming stand that he was not the owner of the tenanted premises. On the contrary he supported the claim of the son Kundan Lal, landlord-respondent. When a person makes a statement against his own interest generally such a statement has to be accepted as correct because it is treated as admission within the meanings of Sections 17 and 18 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Moreover, the documents Exs.R.1 and R.2 on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner are entries of the house tax assessment registered pertaining to the year 1983-84 whereas the landlord- respondent has produced on record the subsequent entries controverting Ex.R.1 and R.2. The tenant-petitioners have failed to discharge the onus of proving the absence of any relationship with the landlord-respondent. Both the Courts below after detailed appreciation of evidence have recorded the conclusion that landlord-respondent Kundan Lal is owner of the demised premises. It is well settled that concurrent findings of facts by reappreciating evidence cannot be interfered with under Section 15(6) of the Act. In this regard reference may be made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vaneet Jain v. Jagjit Singh, 2000(1) RCR(Rent) 507 (SC) : (2000-3)126 PLR 263 (SC); Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, 1999(2) RCR(Rent) 141 (SC) : (1999)6 SCC 222; Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 1998(2) RCR(Rent) 533 (SC) : (1998)8 SCC 119; Shiv Lal v. Sat Parkash, 1994(1) RCR(Rent) 495 (SC) : 1993 (Suppl) SCC 345; Bhoop Chand v. Kay Pee Investments, (1991)1 SCC 343; Pooran Chand v. Moti Lal, AIR 1964 SC 461; Helper Girdhar Bai v. Saiyed Mohammed Mirasaheb Kadri, AIR 1987 SC 1782; Ram Dass v. Ishwar Chander, 1988(1) RCR(Rent) 625 (SC) : AIR 1988 SC 1422; Rajbir Kaur v. M/s Chokosiri and Co., 1988(2) RCR(Rent) 328 (SC) : AIR 1988 SC 1845; Lachman Dass v. Santokh Singh, 1995(2) RCR(Rent) 480 (SC) : (1995-3)111 PLR 276; Hari Shankar v. Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury, AIR 1963 SC 698 and State of Kerala v. K.M. Charia Andullah and Co., AIR 1965 SC 1585. All these judgments have been considered by this Court in the case of Dhani Ram v. Madan Lal, 2003(1) RCR(Rent) 729 (P&H) : (2003-2)134 PLR 565 for the view taken in the instant petition.