KARTAR SINGH Vs. SOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EVICTION of Kartar Singh, tenant-petitioner was sought by respondents-landlord, who are brothers, from the demised shop on the ground that he had not paid arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 150/- p.m. with effect from 1st July, 1971. On the first date of hearing, the petitioner tenant tender Rs. 254/- on account of arrears of rent, Rs. 16/- on account of interest and Rs. 30/- towards costs. This amount was assessed on the basis of the stand taken by the petitioner tenant that the rate of rent was Rs. 70/- per month, that he had paid the rent up to 31st July, 1974, and was liable to make payment with effect from 1st August, 1974, and that after adjusting from the amount of rent a sum of Rs. 446/- on account agreement Ex. RI the arrears that remained due from him would work out to be only Rs. 254/-. The tender was accepted by the respondent-landlord without prejudice to their rights. Both the court concurrently found that the rate of rent was Rs. 70/- P.M. as regard the validity of tender, the point in controversy between the parties was as to whether the arrears were due from 1st July, 1971, as alleged by the respondent-landlord or from 1st August, 1974, as asserted by the tenant-petitioner. Kartar Singh, tenant, in support of his case examined himself as also on Balbir Singh. Both of them deposed that the rent had been paid to Sohal Lal, landlord, up to 31st July, 1974. Kartar Sing stated that he maintained book of accounts in which the payment of rent had been entered, and he produced the books of account in court. From the otherside, Sohan Lal appears as his own witness. He stated that the rent had been paid only up to 1st July, 1971. He further disposed that he maintained no books of account. He, however, admitted the agreement Ex. R/1, and further admitted that on the date of agreement he owed a sum of Rs. 446/- to Kartar Singh, tenant on account of purchase of cloth. He also admitted that the agreement R/1 was executed between him, his brother Mohan Lal and his brother-in-law Piare Lal, on the one hand, and Kartar Singh, petitioner, on the other, in the Police Station.

(2.) THE Court below disbelieved the testimony of Kartar Singh, tenant, on the ground that although he maintained books of account and had stated that the rent had been entered therein, he did not produce the copies of the relevant entries from his account-books when he appeared as a witness. This approach is utterly erroneous and perverse. The petitioner did bring the original books of account for the court to see. In view of that, where was the question of tendering copies of entries from the original books of account to prove the same. Similar is the approach of the trial court regarding the reading of agreement R1. The said agreement was executed between the parties in the Police Station as a sequel to a fight between the tenant, on the one hand, and the landlords and their brother-in-law, on the other, when they wanted to forcibly eject Kartar Singh from the demised shop. The agreement was entered on 4th August, 1974. Had there been anything due from Kartar Singh on that date, it would have been mentioned in that agreement. On the contrary, in that agreement it was mentioned that Rs. 415/- was due to Kartar Singh from Sohan Lal, landlord, and that the same shall be adjusted from the rent. Obviously, it only meant that the said amount was to be adjusted from the future rent. What is more, the evidence of Sohan Lal should not have carried any weight in the face of the fact that he stands falsified in regard to the rate of rent. Both the courts had concurrently held, as already observed, that the rent was Rs. 70/- per month as asserted by the tenant, and not Rs. 150/- as alleged by the landlords. In view of the above, there is no escape from the conclusion that the tenant had paid the rent up to 31st July, 1974. It is not in dispute that once it is held that the rent had been paid by the tenant upto 31st July, 1974, the tender of arrears made by him was valid.