AMI CHAND Vs. SANATAN DHARAM HIGH SCHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Sanatan Dharam High School, Bhiwani, was got registered as a Society under the Societies Registration Act, in the year 1954. It was running two Schools in Bhiwani. The Society owned certain shops. A power of attorney was executed in favour of Manohar Lal by the governing body of the Society to manage the Schools, to fight out the litigation, to let out the property and to receive the rent. He let out four shops to four different tenants. The tenants or their successors-in-interest kept on paying rent to the registered society through Manohar Lal and Manohar Lal kept in issuing receipts on behalf of the society and obtained signatures of the tenants on the counter foils. The society through Shri Manohar Lal filed four separate applications for eviction of the tenants on the ground of non-payment of rent. In all the four cases the tenants did not pay nor tendered rent within 15 days of the first hearing, and if they had done so they could save their ejectment. The tenants set up the plea that Manohar Lal's authority to receive rent stood determined and the previous governing body had become defunct and Swami Ganesha Nand was the person who was managing the affairs of the society and was entitled to receive the rent and that they had paid rent to the real society who was entitled to manage the property. According to the plea set up, Ganesha Nand was the president of the local managing committee and was entitled to receive the rent and file the proceeding. In all the four cases an issue was struck, whether Manohar Lal was authorised to receive the rent on behalf of the society and whether the tenants were in arrears of rent. The Rent Controller found that the society through Manohar Lal was entitled to receive the rent and all the four tenants failed to prove that they had paid the rent to the society through Swami Ganesha Nand or any other person. Since no tender was made on the first date of hearing, in three cases by order dated 12th June, 1981 and in one case by order dated Ist February, 1980, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the four tenants separately. The tenants sent up in separate appeals and the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeals and maintained the order of the Rent Controller in all the four cases. Appeal against order dated Ist February, 1980, was dismissed on 24th March, 1982, against which Civil Revision No. 1883 of 1982 has been filed, whereas the appeals against orders dated 12th June, 1981 were dismissed on 15th June, 1984, against which Civil Revision Nos. 1941 to 1943 of 1984 have been filed. Since common question arises, they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE facts of Civil Revision No. 1941 to 1943 of 1984 are identical and, therefore, facts of Civil Revision No. 1943 of 1984 are being noticed for facility of reference.

(3.) IN equity I would have helped the tenant in case he had shown that he paid rent to the society through a person other than Manohar Lal, even if it was proved on record that Manohar Lal continued to be a person entitled to receive rent on behalf of the society. In spite of the plea in the written statement that the rent has been paid to the society through some body else, the tenants have led no evidence to prove payment of rent since Ist October, 1977 till filing of the ejectment petition. In all these three cases the tenants have not produced any rent receipts showing payment of rent to the society, may be through some other persons. The tenant had appeared before the Rent Controller on 30th May, 1978 at the stage of tendering the rent and his stand was that he had paid the rent to the real governing body of Swami Ganesha Nand. When he appeared as a witness he took a somer sault and stated that some time he paid rent to the Master and sometimes to a clerk and did not disclose their names. As already stated, he did not produce any rent receipt. However, he produced Sham Sagar Accountant of the School as RW-2, but he did not state that the tenant had paid rent to him on behalf of the society. Hence I uphold the finding of the Courts below that the tenant is in arrears of rent with effect from Ist October, 1977 till the filing of the ejectment petition, and that he did not pay the rent for the aforesaid period to the society whether through Manohar Lal or some body else. Since the tenant did not tender or pay the arrears of rent within 15 days of the first date of hearing, the order of ejectment will have to be upheld, unless the tenants succeeds in showing that Manohar Lal was authorised to file the ejectment petition on behalf of the society.