BANKE BIHARI Vs. SHRIMATI RADHA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An eviction application was filed by the respondent under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, (hereinafter called the Act), for ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that the respondent needed the premises in dispute bona fide for her own occupation. Though the ejectment was not sought on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent, yet the petitioner had disputed the rate of rent as Rs. 40/- per month and had contended in his written statement that the rate of rent was, in fact Rs. 20/- per month. In view of this dispute, in addition to the issue regarding bona fide requirement of the landlord an issue regarding the rate of rent was also framed. According to the impugned order, the petitioner wanted to examine a clerk of the Municipal Committee to prove his contention regarding the rate of rent, but the same was not allowed to be examined by the Rent Controller on the ground that the landlord respondent had given up the ground of ejectment regarding the non-payment of arrears of rent. By the impugned order, the Rent Controller has also closed the evidence of the petitioner on the ground that the statements of other witnesses sought to be produced by the petitioner were not necessary in view of the statement of the landlord that she had shifted from the house of Charan Dass to that of Pishori Lal. This order has been challenged in the present revision petition.

(2.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding to the rate of rent was necessary because in the eviction petition the respondent had claimed Rs. 40/- per month as rent whereas the petitioner had alleged Rs. 20/- per month as rent. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the landlord had not sought eviction from the premises on the ground of non- payment of arrears of rent and there was no question of tendering arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month. The contents of the eviction petition have been read over to me. From the same, it is clear that the landlord did not claim ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent. Therefore, it was not necessary to frame the issue regarding the non-payment of arrears of rent. In any case, the said issue was later on given up, nor was it relevant for the purpose of admission of the eviction application. The apprehension of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in a case there is no finding regarding the rate of rent in future also he will be burdened with the payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month and further that this contention of the landlord in the eviction petition may not be treated as res judicata, is misconceived. When there is no issue between the parties regarding the non-payment of arrears of rent, the question of the rate of rent is not in issue between them ; nor is, therefore, any finding necessary. In future, if the respondent claims any rent at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month, the petitioner will be at liberty to dispute the contention of the respondent and his case will not be prejudiced in any manner.

(3.) So far as the claim of the petitioner to examine Daljit Singh and Charan Dass is concerned, the same should not have been disallowed. The petitioner is entitled to lead any evidence to rebut the evidence of the respondent regarding her contention of bona fide requirement. Simply because the respondent has made some admission in her statement is not sufficient to debar the petitioner from leading his evidence. To that extent, the order of the Rent Controller cannot be sustained. The impugned order to this extent, is therefore, set aside and it is directed that the petitioner will be entited to procuce Daljit Singh and Charan Dass as his witnesses.