SHAKUNTLA Vs. JAGDISH RAM GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will also dispose of Civil Revision Petition Nos. 1467, 1468 and 2455 of 1986, as the common questions of law and fact arise in these cases.

(2.) CIVIL Revision Petition Nos. 1466 and 1468 of 1986 have been filed against two separate orders of the Appellate Authority dated April 25, 1986, whereby the ejectment orders were passed against the tenant whereas Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 1467 and 2455 of 1986, have been filed against the order of the Appellate Authority of even date, by the tenant and the landlord, respectively, whereby the rate of rent was held to be Rs. 150/- per month and not Rs. 100/- as pleaded by the tenant, but the appeal against the order of the Rent Controller declining the ejectment application was dismissed. In Civil Revision Petition Nos. 1466 and 1468 and 1986, the landlord Jagdish Ram Gupta, sought the ejectment of his tenant, Shakuntla, wife of Sher Singh from the demised premises, on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent. Impairing the value and utility of the demised premises was also the additional ground taken for her eviction in the eviction application out of which Civil Revision Petition No. 1468 of 1986 has arisen. According to the landlord, the premises were let out to the tenant at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month. The allegations made by the landlord were controverted by the tenant. According to her the rate of rent of the demised premises was Rs. 100/- per month only. Accordingly, she paid the arrears of rent on the first date of hearing at that rate in both the petitions. The learned Rent Controller found that it was Rs. 100/- per month and accordingly dismissed the ejectment applications. In appeal, the learned Prescribed Authority reversed the said findings of the Rent Controller and held that the premises, in question, were rented out at a monthly rent of Rs. 150/-. Since the tender was short because the tenant had made it at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month, the eviction orders were passed, as noticed earlier.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record, I do not find any impropriety in the firm finding of the Appellate Authority in this behalf. It has been found as a fact that the receipt, Exhibit P-1, whereby Rs. 300/- were paid as rent by the daughter, Surinder Kaur of the tenant, related to the demised premises and that the version put forth by the tenant that it related to different premises was not accepted. Not only that, the tenant could not produce a single receipt to prove that she ever paid the rent at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month to the landlord, whereas the landlord has produced counterfoils to show that the rent was being paid at a monthly rent of Rs. 150/- per month. It is also in evidence and not disputed that Surinder Kaur, the daughter of the tenant has been realising Rs. 150/- per month as the house rent from the Government. In these circumstances, it was difficult to believe that when she was realising Rs. 150/- per month from the Government, the tenant was paying Rs. 100/- as rent to the landlord. The tenant found it a convenient way for getting out of the said receipt by saying that it related to a different premises which has not been believed by the Appellate Authority. Once the rate of rent is held to be Rs. 150/- per month, then since the tender was made by the tenant at the rate of Rs. 100/-, she was liable to be ejected from the demised premises on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent.