DARSHAN SINGH Vs. KARTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant has filed this revision petition against the order dated 24.9.1991 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar (exercising the power of Appellate Authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949), whereby the order of the Rent Controller dated 4.4.1989 determining the monthly rent of the demised premises as Rs. 30/-, has been set aside while holding that the monthly rent of the demised premises is Rs. 200/-.

(2.) IN this case, the respondent landlord filed the ejectment application against the petitioner tenant from the demised premises (shop) under Section 13(2)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground of non-payment of rent from 1.7.1985 to 30.6.1986. He claimed the rent at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month. On the first date of hearing, the petitioner tendered the rent for the claimed period at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month along with interest and cost, as assessed by the Rent Controller. However, he contested the petition on the plea that the rate of rent of the demised premises is Rs. 30/- per month.

(3.) FEELING aggrieved against the order of the Rent Controller, the respondent landlord filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority while taking into consideration the earlier two applications Ex.A1 and Ex.A4 filed by the respondent landlord on the ground of non-payment of rent, held that the monthly rate of rent of the demised premises was Rs. 200/-. The application Ex.A1 was filed in the year 1976 wherein the landlord claimed the rent at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month from February, 1976, and the same was tendered by the tenant on the first date of hearing. The said application was got withdrawn by the landlord without any protest and contest. Similarly application Ex.A4 was filed in the year 1976 claiming rent from 1.3.1984 to 30.6.1985 at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month. Again the petitioner tendered the claimed rent on the first date of hearing and permitted the landlord to withdraw the said application without any protest and contest. The Appellate Authority has also taken into consideration that after tendering the rent in the year 1976 and in the year 1985, the petitioner tenant did not file any application under Section 8 of the Act for recovery of the excess amount of rent which he could have filed within six months of the date of making the tender. The Appellate Authority also did not agree with the findings recorded by the Rent Controller on the Agreement (Ex, R1) and receipts (Ex. RW4/A and Ex.RW4/B) and held that those documents are forged and fabricated. In this regard, the finding recorded by the Rent Controller was reversed by the Appellate Authority while observing as under :