VINOD KUMAR Vs. SANT LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 ('Act' for short) has been filed against the order dated 24.8.2005 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Moga whereby the appeal of the landlord-respondent Sant Lal against the order dated 23.10.2002 of the learned Rent Controller, Moga has been allowed after setting aside the order of the Rent Controller and ejectment of the tenant-petitioner has been ordered.

(2.) THE landlord-respondent filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act seeking ejectment of the tenant-petitioner from the shop as detailed in the head note of the petition. The ejectment was sought on the ground that the tenant-petitioner has neither paid nor tendered the rent w.e.f. 8.10.1994 @ Rs. 484/- per month. Besides, he has not paid house tax w.e.f. 1.4.1994. Lastly, that the petitioner requires the shop in question for his own use and occupation. The petition was contested by the tenant-petitioner. It was stated that previously the monthly rent was Rs. 400/- and on 8.10.1990 an agreement was entered into by the parties and the rent was enhanced by 10% only for once after two years. The tenant-petitioner paid rent @ Rs. 440/- per month upto 8.10.1994 as per agreement. It was stated that the respondent is not in arrears of rent since 8.10.1994 @ Rs. 484/- per month which was never fixed. The rate of rent vide writing dated 1.10.1994, it was stated, was Rs. 440/- per month. The tenant-petitioner had paid Rs. 7920/- to the landlord- respondent as advance rent from 1.10.1994 to 31.3.1996. Vide writing dated 8.5.1996 the landlord-respondent received rent for the month of April 1996. Vide receipt dated 8.5.1996, the landlord-respondent took loan of Rs. 30,000/- from the tenant-petitioner. It was agreed that the interest on the loan amount would be adjusted as rent after three years. The loan amount was to be returned to the tenant-petitioner. Both writings dated 1.10.1994 and 8.5.1996, it is stated, were duly executed by the landlord-respondent. Therefore, in order to seek ejectment of the tenant-petitioner, the landlord-respondent had claimed the rent. Besides, it was stated that the tenant-petitioner is not liable to pay house tax and he had never agreed to pay the house tax. Neither the landlord-respondent served any notice on the tenant-petitioner making a claim for house tax. The allegation of the landlord-respondent that the shop was required for his personal use and occupation was also denied. In fact, the landlord-respondent only wanted to eject the tenant-petitioner. A rejoinder was filed to the petition and the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues :-

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Appellate Authority has gravely erred in setting aside and reversing the well merited and considered decision of the Rent Controller. It is contended that the Appellate Authority erred in concluding that the signatures of Sant Lal on documents Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2 are forged. The reliance placed on the tutored expert, it is contended, was unwarranted and in fact the said documents were proved by the deposition of Baldev Raj (RW-1), Bhupinder Singh (RW-2), Vaneet Kumar (RW-3), Manjit Singh (RW-4), Dr. V.K. Pahuja i.e. tenant-petitioner (RW-5) himself. It is contended that the evidence of the expert produced by the landlord-respondent (AW-7) and his report Ex.AW-7/1 is of no consequence in the presence of direct and positive evidence. Besides, it is contended that the signatures of the landlord are in Urdu and the expert had stated that he does not know Urdu and was not in a position to read the entire portion Mark- D. Besides, it is contended that the landlord-respondent is a semiliterate person and does not possess any special style of signatures. It is also contended that the landlord-respondent concealed the material fact that as per the agreement, the interest accruing on the loan amount of Rs. 30,000/- was to be adjusted towards rent of the shop and after lapse of three years i.e. after 3.5.1999 the landlord-respondent was to return the principal amount of Rs. 30,000/- to the tenant-petitioner and thereafter the tenant-petitioner was to start paying rent @ Rs. 440/- per month. Even the ground for personal requirement set-up by the landlord-respondent, it is contended, is without basis and the landlord has failed to prove that he needs the shop for his personal use and occupation and rather, it is mere wishful desire without element of any need therein. The landlord-respondent in collusion with his son was misusing the provisions of law to achieve the ejectment of the tenant- petitioner. The evidence led by the landlord-respondent to establish bona fide need, it is contended, does not inspire any confidence.