TOTA RAM Vs. DULI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition against whom the eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below.

(2.) THE landlords sought the ejectment of tenant Tota Ram from the demised premises which are a part of house No. 2911 and shown in the blue colour in the site plan, Exhibit A-3, inter alia on the grounds that (i) the tenant was in arrears of rent for the last three years preceding the date of the eviction application besides the house tax amounting to Rs. (sic),980/-; (ii) the house being in a dilapidated condition had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation; (iii) the landlords wanted to occupy the said house after reconstructing the same and that (iv) the tenant had become a source of nuisance to the landlords because he did not allow them to use the two rooms in which the luggage of the landlords was lying. In the written statement, the tenant denied the monthly rent to be Rs. 50/- besides the house-tax and pleaded that the rate of rent for the demised premises was Rs. 12/- per month including house-tax and that he had been paying the same to the landlords at that rate. However, in order to avoid his ejectment from the premises, he tendered the arrears of rent, house-tax etc, amounting of Rs. 616/- in the Court of the Rent Controller on the first date of hearing. The other allegations made in the eviction application were also controverted by him. The learned Rent Controller found that the rate of rent was Rs. 12/- per month excluding house tax and not Rs. 50/- per month as claimed by the landlords. It was also found that the tenant was liable to pay the house-tax in addition to the rent at the rate of Rs. 12/- per month, and that the tender of Rs. 616/- was not legal one as the interest if calculated came to Rs. 134/- and not Rs. 100/- only which was paid by the tenant. Thus, the tender was held to be short. It was further found that Tarlok Chand, applicant, required the premises bonafide for his own use and occupation. The other pleas raised on behalf of the landlords were negatived. Consequently, the eviction order was passed against the tenant. In appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller as regards the bonafide requirement of the landlords. According to the Appellate Authority, the landlords had failed to prove by any positive evidence that there was any bonafide need on their part to occupy the house, in question. However, the finding of the Rent Controller in regard to the short tender was maintained. According to the Appellate Authority, the interest, if calculated came to Rs. 134/- and not Rs. 100/- as paid by the tenant. Thus, the eviction order passed against the tenant by the Rent Controller was maintained by it. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has filed this revision petition in this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties on this point, I am of the considered opinion that the whole approach of the authorities below in this behalf was wrong, illegal and improper. It has been wrongly observed by the Appellate Authority that the tenant has not specifically denied his liability to pay the house-tax. From a perusal of paragraph 2 of the written statement, it appears that it has been clearly stated therein that the monthly rent of the demised premises was Rs. 12/- inclusive of house-tax. There is no cogent evidence led on behalf of the landlords to prove that the tenant was liable to pay house tax besides the rent. Admittedly, the premises were let out somewhere in the year 1973-74, when the house-tax was already levied on the demised premises. The landlords claimed the rent at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month, which plea was found to be false by both the Courts below. According to the tenant, he was paying rent at the rate of Rs. 12/- per month inclusive of house-tax. Under the circumstances, it was for the landlords to prove that the tenant was liable to pay the house-tax in addition to the monthly rent which they have failed to prove by any cogent evidence. Thus, the findings of the authorities below in this behalf, that the tenant was liable to pay the house tax in addition to the monthly rent of Rs. 12/-, are liable to be set aside. It is surprising that in the ejectment application, the landlords did not give any date from which the tenant was in arrears of rent. The plea taken by them in this regard was that for the last three years, the tenant was in arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. Since the landlords did not give a specific date from which the tenant was alleged to be in arrears of rent and the rent paid for December, 1977 and January, 1978, had not fallen due at the time of the filing of the eviction application, the amount of rent for two months and the house-tax paid by the tenant could be adjusted towards the interest due. If the said amount is so adjusted, then according to the authorities below the interest calculated came to Rs. 134/- whereas the tenant had paid Rs. 100/- plus Rs. 44/- plus 24/-. The calculations made by the learned counsel for the landlords in this Court were never accepted by the authorities below. It was for the Rent Controller to assess the interest on the amount of the arrears of rent due, but in any case even if this amount was not assessed at time of the first hearing, even then, it was calculated later and was found to be Rs. 134/- only. If that is so then it could be successfully argued on behalf of the landlords that it could be taken to be Rs. 146.34. Thus, under the circumstances, it could not be held that the tender made on the first date of hearing was short in any manner. The findings of the authorities in this behalf are liable to be set aside.