SUDAMA PARSHAD Vs. SURINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition against whom the eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below.

(2.) THE landlords Surinder Kumar and another, filed the ejectment application with the allegations that Sudama Parshad, petitioner, was a tenant under them on the demised premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 50 vide rent note, dated October 11, 1980. His ejectment was sought from the premises on the grounds of non-payment of the arrears of rent from October 11, 1980 to October 10, 1981, amounting to Rs. 600 besides Rs. 78 as the house-tax and Rs. 45 as interest; he had raised some katcha unauthorised construction over the house, in dispute, without the consent of the landlords and that he had sublet one room to some other person without their consent. In the written statement, the tenant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He claimed that he was in occupation of the premises as a owner. It has also pleaded that he had raised construction over the site about seven years ago and, thereafter he had been residing therewith his family. In the circumstances, the question of tendering any rent did not arise. As regards the rent note, it was pleaded that Harbans Lal, the predecessor-in-interest of the landlords, was a daily visitor to his house and had developed family relations with him. It is just possible that he had forged some documents and got his signatures thereon. In fact, he never executed any rent note in favour of the landlords. The learned Rent Controller found that there existed the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Since the tenant was in arrears of rent and the same were not tendered on the first date of hearing, the eviction order was passed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the eviction order. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has filed this revision petition in this Court.

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY , this revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs. However, the tenant is allowed three months' time to vacate the premises; provided all the arrears of rent, if any, are deposited with the Rent Controller within one month from today along with an undertaking, in writing, that after the expiry of the said period, the premises would be vacated and the vacant possession thereof would be handed over to the landlords and the future rent will be paid regularly in advance monthly by the tenth of every month. Petition dismissed.