INDER DEV VERMA Vs. GOPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of Civil Revision Petition Nos. 1396 and 1397 of 1970, which arise out of the judgment dated 17-11-1977 of the learned Appellate Authority Sonepat, confirming two separate orders of ejectment passed against Inder Dev Verma, tenant petitioner in respect of the same premises, viz. the portion of house No. 11-L, Model Town, Sonepat, of which Gopal Singh respondent is the owner and landlord and which premises is in occupation of the petitioner as a tenant on a rental of Rs. 102.50 per month.

(2.) THE respondent landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant petitioner on 5-1-1976 under section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), on the ground that the tenant petitioner had not paid or tendered the rent due from him in respect of the premises in the dispute for the period from 1-2-1975 to 31-1-1976. The tenant tendered rent for the period from 1-2-1975 to 30.11.1975 together with interest and cost in court. Both the authorities below have held that the rent for the month of December, 1975 was also due from the tenant petitioner on the date the eviction application was filed and since the tender made by him was short the eviction of the tenant-petitioner was ordered. The landlord filed a subsequent eviction application against the tenant-petitioner again on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent for the period 1-12-1975 to 31.3.1976. The tenant again made short tender in respect of one month and his eviction was ordered on the ground that the tender made by him was not proper.

(3.) SHRI S.C. Kapoor, the learned counsel for the tenant petitioner, has firstly contended that the counterfoils of the receipts referred to in the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority marked 'B' to 'Y' are not proved and accepted on the record. On perusal of the file of the Rent Controller, however, it is evident that originally the receipts were marked but later on in the course of evidence the counterfoils of the receipts were proved and accepted as Exs. A. 5 to A 27. The second contention of Mr. Kapoor is that the proof of counterfoils of these receipts in no way establishes any oral agreement of payment of rent in advance every month by the tenant. According to Mr Kapoor the tenant may be making payments in advance for different months according to his convenience. I am not inclined to accept the contention. As held by the authorities below, there is a consistent course of conduct on the part of the tenant and that the landlord of payment and receipt of rent in advance every month which proves an oral agreement that the tenant was to make payment of rent every month in advance.