ARJAN SINGH Vs. KANHIYA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord petitioner having failed to secure an order of ejectment against the tenant-respondent from the learned Rent Controller or from the Appellate Authority under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act') has approached this Court through the present revision petition. The petitioner filed an ejectment application against the respondent under Section 13 of the Act seeking eviction of the latter on two grounds, namely, that he has neither paid nor tendered rent from 1.3.1970 onwards and that the premises in dispute were required by him for his own use and occupation of his family members. It was alleged that the petitioner had purchased the house from its previous owner and had got the right to recover the rent from the respondent from 1.3.1970 to 30.12.1971. Narain Dass, father of the respondent, was a tenant in the demised premises under the previous owner at a monthly rent of Rs. 25/- vide rent note dated 15.1.1948. It was further stated that the petitioner is living in another house along with his sons and their families and that house is not sufficient for their needs. They have no other house excepting the one already in their possession in which they are residing, nor they have vacated any in the urban area of Gurgaon without sufficient cause after the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Punjab Act, 1949'). It was further disclosed that another property No. E.P. 17 situated on the old Railway Road, Gurgaon, which was in a dilapidated condition, was sold by the petitioner on 28.12.1971 and with the sale proceeds of the said house the property in dispute was purchased by him.

(2.) THE respondent contested the petition. He disputed the rate of rent. According to him, originally the rate of rent was Rs. 20/- per month with effect from 1.10.1954 and later on it was increased to Rs. 22.50 per months, which was the rate of rent prevailing on the date of filing of the ejectment application. The rent was tendered on the first date of hearing at the rate of Rs. 22.50 per month along with interest and costs. The same was accepted by the petitioner under protest stating that the tender is not valid. As regards the alleged requirement of the petitioner in respect of the house in dispute for his own use and for the use of his family members, it was contended by the respondent that the petitioner had three more houses in the urban area of Gurgaon which are sufficient for his requirements. It was further stated that during the pendency of the ejectment application, the petitioner had converted the ground floor of the premises in dispute into a non-residential building and let it out to the National Textile Corporation. It was also alleged that the petitioner had made some other construction and rented out the same to the State Bank of Patiala during the pendency of the ejectment application. The petitioner had also vacated two rooms which were in his possession on the old Railway Road without any sufficient cause. He has also one house in Jacubpura, Gurgaon, and the same was also vacated by him without any sufficient cause.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I have also gone through their pleadings as also the evidence adduced before the Rent Controller. The first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there being a rent note Ex. P.W. 1/1 executed by Narain Dass, father of the respondent, on 15.7.1948 which stipulates the rate of rent of the premises at Rs. 25/- per month, no evidence on behalf of the respondent to the effect that the rate of rent was Rs. 22.50 per month ought to have been taken into consideration. I have considered this submission but find no force in the same. It is not a case where oral evidence was sought to be led against the stipulation in an agreement in writing. What the learned Courts below have relied on are the counterfoils of the receipts Exs. R.W. 2/1-4 signed by Siri Pal, the previous landlord, receipts Exs. P.W. 2/5, 6, 8 and 9 issued by Siri Pal, and receipt Ex. R.W. 2/7 signed by Ramji Lal. All these receipts are to the effect that the rate of rent was Rs. 22.50 per month in respect of the premises in dispute. Receipt Ex. R.W. 2/5 is in respect of the rent for the period from 1.7.1969 to 28.2.1970. Even according to the petitioner, rent with effect from 1.3.1970 had not been paid to the previous landlord. Thus, it shows that till the last payment to the previous landlord the rate of rent was Rs. 22.50 per month. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any discrepancy in this overwhelming evidence which proves that the rate of rent was Rs. 22.50 per month. I, therefore, affirm the finding of the learned Courts below on this issues.