GULZARI LAL Vs. RAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAM Singh sought ejectment of Gulzari Lal from a residential house on the ground of non-payment of rent, personal necessity as his son Gurdial Singh was to come from Canada and on the ground that the premises were unfit and unsafe for human habitation, it was pleaded that the tenant was in arrears of rent with effect from 1.1.1979 at the rate of Rs. 5 per month besides Rs. 5 per month as water charges. The ejectment petition was filed on 1.10.1981. On the first date of hearing, the tenant tendered the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 20 per month besides paying Rs. 5 per month towards water charges. The tender was accepted under protest. The Rent Controller by order dated 13.9.1983 came to the conclusion that the rate was Rs. 80 per month with the result the tender was found to be short and invalid. The ground of personal necessity was not proved as by then Gurdial Singh son of the landlord had not come from Canada. However, the building was found unfit and unsafe for human habitation. On the two proved grounds, the order of ejectment was passed. The tenant took the matter in appeal and the Appellate Authority confirmed the findings of the Rent Controller in regard to the rate as also the ground of ejectment for invalid tender of arrears of rent. The Appellate Authority reversed he finding of Rent Controller and held that the house was safe and fit for human habitation. As regards the personal necessity, the finding of Rent Controller was reversed and it was held that Jagjit Singh another son of the landlord had come from Germany and the house was required for use and occupation of that son who was married and had children. Consequently, the order of ejectment was upheld by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 16.10.1985. This is tenant's revision.

(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire record, I am of the view that the order of ejectment passed by the two courts below on the ground that short tender was made deserves to be upheld. I went though the entire evidence because in the revisional jurisdiction this court has to see the legality and propriety of the ejectment order. From the evidence on the record it cannot be said that the finding about the rate of rent recorded by the two courts below could not be arrived at. The finding is supported not only from the statement of the landlord as A.W.1 but also stands corroborated from the statement of Inder Sen Sharma who was produced by the tenant as R.W. 1, Inder Sen Sharma has clearly stated that earlier the rent was less which was raised to Rs. 80 per month. The aforesaid two statements are further supported by entry Exhibit A. 3 from the House Tax Register where for the assessment year 1976-77 Rs. 80 are mentioned as rent payable by Gulzari Lal tenant.

(3.) ON behalf of the tenant reliance was also placed on receipts Exhibits R.1 to R.3. Firstly these were not relied upon and when the landlord and his son appeared they were not put to them. The tenant produced them while appearing as a witness and the cross-examination shows that the landlord disputed their genuineness. Moreover, the last receipt it dated 15.8.1975, whereas from 1976-77 the rate of rent is Rs. 80 per month. No receipt from 1976 to 31.12.1978 has been produced which could prove as to what was the rent last paid. Hence, I agree with the courts below that receipts Exhibits R.1 to R.3 do not advance the tenant's case.