JAGDISH RAJ Vs. TEJ RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the, Appellate Authority, Gurdaspur, dated May 6, 1976 by which the appeal of the tenant-petitioner was dismissed, and the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller was upheld.

(2.) Tej Ram, landlord filed an application under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (3 of 1949) (hereinafter called the Act) for ejectment of the tenant-petitioner from the shop in dispute on the allegation that arrears of rent had not been paid from 1967 to 1972. Rent was claimed at the rate of Rs. 30/- per mensem. In reply to this application the tenant - petitioner denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, but it was admitted that he was in October 21, 1972. Inter alia it was contended that he rent fixed was Rs. 10/- per mensem and not Rs. 30/- as claimed by the landlord.In view of the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed :

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that during the pendency of the appeal before The learned Appellate Authority an application was moved in which an order was passed on April 4, 1975, which purported to be that the landlord respondent will not insist on the application if all arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 14/- per mensem are paid within one month. The appeal was thus adjourned to 5th of May, 1975, On this date the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 14/- per mensem were paid by the tenant, and in view of this payment, according to the order of the learned Appellate Authority, the application was dismissed as having been not pressed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner it was clear that the respondent had agreed to forgo his claim regarding the ejectment of the petitioner from the shop in dispute if arrears of rent, at the rate of Rs. 14/- per mensem were paid, and as this condition had been complied with, the ejectment order should be quashed. I am afraid I cannot agree with this contention. From the perusal of the two orders which have been read out to me by the learned counsel for the petitioner it seems that the application had been made by the landlord respondent to get the stay order issued against him in appeal vacated, and during the hearing of this application the applicant undertook not to press his application if the arrears of rent were paid at the rate of Rs. 14/- per mensem. As the same were paid on the next date of hearing, that is on May 5, 1975, the landlord did not press his application and the same was filed by the order of the Court. From these two orders it cannot be spelt out that the respondent landlord had given an undertaking at any stage not to press his application for ejectment if the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 14/- per mensem were paid. It is unfortunate that the tenant-petitioner was somehow not advised to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 14/- per mensem at the first hearing. Whatever the cause the fact remains that he did not pay the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 14/- per mensem and he must suffer ejectment for the same. In view of the circumstances mentioned above, this revision petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.