BHARAT PAL SINGH Vs. JASBIR KAUR JOHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision directed against judgment dated 13.12.1999 passed by the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh whereby he has been ordered to be ejected on the ground of non-payment of rent.

(2.) RENT Controller vide judgment dated 2.11.1998 dismissed the eviction application dated 9.6.1994, claiming arrears of rent of 38 months, filed by landlady, namely, Jasbir Kaur (GPA of her husband Mohinder Singh-co-owner) against her tenant (petitioner herein), holding the rate of rent of the demised premises at Rs. 2000/- and further holding that the tenant had made the payment of rent before filing of the rent petition by the landlady at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month and therefore, no rent was due on the first date of hearing, as claimed by the landlady. Feeling aggrieved, the landlady preferred an appeal. The Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, on reappreciation of the evidence led by the parties to the lis, allowed the appeal of the landlady after setting aside judgment dated 2.11.1998 passed by Rent Controller, Chandigarh, on the ground of non-payment of rent for 38 months at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month and resultantly, directed the tenant to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlady within three months. Hence, the present revision petition by the tenant.

(3.) THE first contention that has been raised is that two subsequent petitions dated 8.4.1995 and 13.11.1997 claiming arrears of rent of the subsequent period and were subsequently withdrawn after the tender of rent, from which an inference can be drawn that no rent is due from the appellant-tenant of the period in issue which is earlier thereto. The argument is not convincing for variety of reasons; firstly, a bare perusal of the case file shows that the afore-stated subsequent petitions had been withdrawn without prejudice to her rights in the pending present petition; secondly, mere withdrawal of the subsequent petitions upon tender of rent does not lead to the conclusion that the landlady gave up her claim of eviction in the earlier eviction petition. In Devi Darshan Singh Bali v. Lal Chand, 1988 (1968) Current Law Journal 943, the landlord did file second petition on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent during the pendency of the first eviction application but the second eviction application did not cover the period of arrears as covered by the first eviction application. It was held that even if the tenant made any payment which the landlord has accepted, that would not mean that the landlord gave up his claim on the first eviction application.