BACHNA RAM Vs. RAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's appeal against whom the application for ejectment was dismissed by the Rent Controller but the order of ejectment was passed in appeal.

(2.) THE landlord sought ejectment of his tenants from the demised premises measuring 32' x 46'. The ejectment was sought on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 80/- per annum since 6th September, 1972. The application was filed on 30th September, 1974. The application was contested on the plea that Ram Lal landlord was the owner of the disputed land measuring 32' x 46' but the rate of rent was Rs. 667 paise per month only. It was pleaded that the tenant had taken the disputed land on rent alongwith some other land measuring 135' x 62' from Bawa Sangat Dass in the year 1939 at the rate of Rs. 80/- per annum. The rent was payable yearly. Thereafter the land in dispute, which is 1/5th part of the whole land, was purchased by Ram Lal landlord. Thus the tenants took it on rent from the said landlord at the rate of Rs. 16/- per annum. It was also pleaded that in the previous ejectment application rent was tendered to the landlord at the rate of Rs. 80/- in order to avoid their ejectment but they contested the rate of rent in their written reply. However, the controversy between the parties as to the rate of rent could not be decided. The tenant tendered the rent at the rate of Rs. 16/- per annum on the first date of hearing. The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the rent for the disputed land was Rs. 80/- per annum and, therefore, the tender at the rate of Rs. 16/- was short. However, under issue No. 2 it was found that the tenants were admittedly monthly tenants but since no notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was served upon them, the ejectment application was not maintainable. In view of that finding, the application was dismissed. In appeal the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the finding of the Rent Controller as to the rate of rent and reversed the finding under issue No. 2. As a result thereof, order of ejectment was passed against the tenants. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenants have filed this petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the total area which was rented out at the rate of Rs. 80/- per year was 135' x 62' i.e. 8370 square feet. Out of the said area Ram Lal landlord purchased 46; x 32' i.e. 1472 square feet. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the landlord is entitled only to the proportionate rent, which is about 1/5th of the total rent and thus the rent comes to Rs. 16/- per annum which according to the learned counsel, was paid on the first date of hearing. It was further argued that in the earlier ejectment application filed on the behalf of the landlord, rent was paid at the rate of Rs. 80/- per annum on the first date of hearing in order to avoid the ejectment of the tenants, but at the same time in the written reply by the tenant it was contested was not more then Rs. 16/- per annum. Thus the Courts below have wrongly relied upon the earlier tender of Rs. 80/- per annum.