SWARAN KAUR Vs. PREM CHAND OF AMRITSAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlords' petition in whose favour the eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller, but set aside in appeal.

(2.) THE landlords, Swaran Kaur and Gian Kaur, sought the ejectment of their tenant Prem Chand, inter alia on the ground of personal necessity and the non-payment of the arrears of rent with effect from February 1, 1979 to October 1, 1981. The ejectment application was filed on October 5, 1981. The rent was claimed at the rate of Rs. 60/- per month. The tenant pleaded that the rate of rent was Rs. 35/- per month. It was further pleaded that the rent till December 19, 1981, had already been paid. However, the tenant on the first date of hearing, i.e. on January 21, 1982, tendered the arrears of rent from December 20, 1981 to January 19, 1982, at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month along with costs and interest. The learned Rent Controller found that the rate of rent was Rs. 35/- per month and not Rs. 60/- per month, as claimed by the landladies. However, on the question of the arrears of rent for the said period, i.e., from February 1, 1979 to October 1, 1981, it was found that the tenant had failed to produce any evidence to show that the rent for the said period was already paid even at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month. In view of this finding, it was held that the tender made on the first date of hearing was invalid and that the tenant was still in arrears of rent for the said period. Hence, the eviction order was passed against him. In appeal, the Appellate Authority without giving any finding as to the payment of the arrears of rent for the said period, reversed the order of the Rent Controller. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in Mehra Chand v. Talik Raj Girdhar, 1982 Punjab Law Reporter 13, the learned Appellate Authority observed that the landladies did not come to the Court with clean hands and had taken false pleas, and therefore, no order of ejectment could be passed in their favour much less a new case could be made for them. As such, the eviction order passed against the tenant was set aside. Dissatisfied with the same, the landladies have filed this revision petition in this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that there is force in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners.