MAYA DEVI Vs. RAJINDER KUMAR SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlady's petition whose ejectment application was allowed by the Rent Controller, but dismissed in appeal.

(2.) THE landlady sought the ejectment of the tenant from the demised premises inter alia on the ground that he was in arrears of rent with effect from September 1, 1978. The ejectment application was filed on October 4, 1980. The premises were let out at a monthly rent of Rs. 70. In the written statement, the tenant took up the plea that the rent of the demised premises was Rs. 50 per month and not Rs. 70, as alleged. It was further stated that the rent up to February, 1981 had been paid to the landlady though she had not issued any receipt therefor. Later on amended written statement was filed in which a further plea was taken that the premises, in dispute, were in possession of the Defence Mazdoor Union and that the respondent had taken the premises only as the General Secretary of the above-said Union. On trial, the Rent Controller found that the tenant had not paid or tendered the rent for the period, in question tand that he having failed to prove that the rent had been paid by him as alleged in the written statement was liable to be evicted. In view of the said finding, the eviction order was passed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller. According to the Appellate Authority, the assertion of the tenant that he had been paying the rent to the landlady was more than enough proof in the absence of the landlady not issuing the receipts to presume that the tenant was not in arrears of rent. In view of this finding, the eviction order passed against the tenant was set aside. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlady has filed this revision petition in this Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the tenant appeared as R.W. 1. In his cross-examination he stated that from the very beginning, he had been paying rent on behalf of the Union. He has further stated that the payment of rent was duly entered into the books of the Union which he had not brought with him that day. Thus, argued the learned counsel that if the rent had been paid, then the books of the Union could be produced. No such evidence was produced before the Rent Controller. Thus, the finding of the Appellate Authority in his behalf was wrong, illegal and based on surmises and conjectures.