STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. BALWANT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition against whom the order of ejectment has been passed by both the authorities below on account of the non-payment of the arrears of rent.

(2.) THE house in dispute, was rented out to the State of Punjab originally on May 1, 1969, at the rate to be assessed by the P.W.D. Rs. 434/- per month were assessed by it as such. Latter on, the property, in dispute was re-assessed by the P.W.D. at the rate of Rs. 670/- per month. The said rent was paid by the tenant with effect from April 1, 1973. Subsequently, there was some dispute between the landlady and the tenant. Consequently, the application for ejectment was filed on April 26, 1975, mainly on the ground of non-payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 670/- per month from January 1, 1974, onwards. On the first date of hearing, i.e., June 12, 1975, the rent was paid at the rate of Rs. 434/- per month. At that time, the rent paid earlier in excess, i.e., at the rate of Rs. 670/- instead of Rs. 434/- per month, with effect from April 1, 1973, was also deducted. The said rent was accepted under protest. Ultimately, the main controversy between the parties remained as to the rate of the rent of the building in question. The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that it could not be held that the building was taken on rent at the fixed rate of Rs. 434/- per month. It was further found that the conduct of the parties shows that the assessment of rent to be obtained every year and it was on the said assessment that the rate of rent for the period, in question, was Rs. 670/- per month. Since the arrears of rent due were not paid at this rate on the first date of hearing, the order of ejectment was passed against the tenant. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said finding of the trial Court and, thus, maintained the order of ejectment passed against the tenant. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the rate of rent was Rs. 434/- per month and it has been wrongly held by both the authorities below that the rent was to be assessed by P.W.D. every year and that it was Rs. 670/- per month at the relevant time. The learned counsel mainly relied upon the writing, Exhibit R. 2, dated February 27, 1974, which is an undertaking given on behalf of the General Attorney of the landlady. The said undertaking is as follows :