JOGINDER SINGH Vs. KULDIP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition and Cross Objections No. 32-CII of 1980 are directed against the judgment dated 29.8.1979 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Ambala, under Section 14(4) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act'). By this judgment the learned Appellate Authority accepted an appeal filed by the landlord-respondents Nos. 1 to 6, set aside the judgment dated 30.12.1978 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ambala Cantonment, whereby an ejectment application filed by them was dismissed. The learned Appellate Authority directed the ejectment of the tenant-petitioner and Prem Chand respondent No. 7 from the premises in dispute.

(2.) IT appears that there was a dispute between the heirs of one Smt. Nanki Devi who owned various houses/shops in Ambala Cantonment and one of these heirs filed a suit for partition and separate possession of the suit properties. These also included properties Nos. 4296-97 and 4301/3. These two properties are in occupation of the petitioner and Prem Chand respondent No. 7 as tenants at Rs. 10/- per months each. The Civil Court appointed joint Receivers to collect the rent of these properties from the tenants so as to secure the interests of the parties to the suit. Shri Harish Chander Bhatnagar Advocate, who was against Joginder Singh petitioner on the ground that he is a tenant of the premises bearing No. 4296-97 but he has not paid or tendered rent. Joginder Singh appeared before the Rent Controller and tendered rent appointed as a Receiver, filed an ejectment application on 3.10.1978 on the first date of hearing which came to Rs. 480/- alongwith Rs. 24/- as water-tax, Rs. 20/- as costs and Rs. 57.60 as interest, total being Rs. 581.60. A certified copy of his statement to this effect made on 3.11.1973 before the Rent Controller is Ex. A. 8. This tender was duly accepted by the Receiver and the ejectment petition was dismissed as withdrawn by the Rent Controller vide his order of the same date, a certified copy of which is Ex. A. 9 on the record.

(3.) WITH regard to the question of non-payment of rent, the learned Rent Controller reached at a finding that the correct municipal number of the demised premises is 4301/3 and not 4298-99 and both the parties were in fact wrongly describing the premises in dispute with the latter number. He further held that the petitioner had already paid the rent in respect of the premises in dispute up to 30.6.1973. Therefore, he was not liable to ejectment therefrom. The learned Rent Controller, therefore, dismissed the ejectment application of the landlords. They filed an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority which vide its judgment under revision reversed the finding of the learned Rent Controller and held that the petitioner had failed to prove that he had paid the rent of the premises bearing No. 4301/3 and, therefore, held him and Prem Chand respondent No. 7 liable to ejectment and passed an order accordingly. This is how the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition in this Court.