BAL KRISHAN Vs. KRISHAN KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition directed to against the orders of the Authorities under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act whereby ejectment of the tenant has been ordered.

(2.) THE premises in dispute is a room in a residential building which was initially let out to the father of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 35.00 per month. The father of the petitioner died somewhere in 1978. On 26. 11. 1986 landlord (respondent herein) filed an application seeking eviction of the tenant from the premises in dispute on the ground of arrears of rent w. e. f. 5. 5. 1975 along with house-tax and also on the ground of his personal necessity and that of his family members. Tenant filed written statement in which he stated that the premises in dispute is not a residential building. Tenant denied that he was in arrears of rent w. e. f. 5. 5. 1975 or the landlord needed the premises in dispute for his personal necessity or that of his family members. It was pointed out in the written statement that landlord was in possession of rooms on the first floor. On the first date of hearing, the tenant tendered the rent from 1-11-1986 to 30-12-1986. on the basis of pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the Rent Controller vide Judgment dated 27-9-1991 ordered ejectment of the tenant on both the grounds. The tenant however, was not found liable to pay house-tax. Tenant preferred an appeal against the order of the Rent Controller. Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 3-11-1995 affirmed the order of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. In this revision petition, the orders of the Authorities below are being impugned.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel, I am of the view that there is no merit in this petition. In the application filed under Section 13 of the Act, the landlord claimed arrears of rent w. e. f. May, 1975 till the date of filing of the ejectment application, i. e. 24-11-1986, stating that he had not been paid rent by the tenant. In answer to this, the tenant in his written statement stated that the rent till 30-10-1986 had already been paid to the landlord. Tenant did not produce on record any receipt showing payment of rent. He rather took the plea that no receipt was ever issued, though he had been paying the rent regularly to the landlord. That plea of the tenant has not been accepted by the Rent Controller as well as the appellate Authority. In my view, too, this plea of the tenant that no receipt was ever issued by the landlord is not acceptable. Onus of proving payment of rent is always upon the tenant and if he fails to discharge the onus by producing cogent evidence he cannot escape eviction. The fact that the landlord had been issuing receipts acknowledging the receipt of rent stands corroborated from certified copies, Exh. P-1 to P-6. The father of the tenant, namely, Kaur Sain, during his life time filed a civil suit for injunction against the landlord for restraining him from interfering in his possession over the tenanted premises and in the said suit he alleged that he had paid rent from 1-1-1970 till 5-5-1975. That -suit had been brought on 26-3-1977, meaning thereby that till March, 1977 the rent had been paid only till May, 1975. Along with the suit, he also filed list of documents in which he mentioned that photostat copies of rent receipts w. e. f. 13-5-1965 to 20-5-1975 are being attached. This shows that receipts were being issued by the landlord against payment of rent. The other contention of counsel that long silence on the part of the landlord not to claim rent is enough to conclude that rent had already been paid to the landlord in also without any merit. Mere silence on the part of the landlord to claim rent is not enough to conclude that the landlord had received the rent. Onus lay heavily on the tenant to prove payment of rent which in this case the tenant has failed to discharge. It is to be noticed that in the suit for injunction the father of the petitioner in para 4 of the plaint had stated that he paid arrears of rent on 20. 5. 1975 at the rate of Rs. 35.00 per month to the landlord for the period from 5-1-1972 to 5-5-1975 meaning thereby that the tenant had not been paying rent month to month but had paid the rent once in five years. In view of this admission in the previous litigation, the argument that silence on the part of the landlord to claim arrears of rent is enough to warrant irresistible conclusion regarding receipt of arrears of rent is not to be accepted. As regards the ground that the tenanted premises are not residential one and that the order of ejectment could not have been passed on the ground of personal necessity, suffice it to say, it is the case of the tenant himself that the demised premises which is a room on the ground floor, form part of their residential building in which the landlord is keeping his residence as well. In view of the clear admission on the part of the tenant that the demised premises form part of residential building, it is not open to him to say that the same cannot be got vacated on the ground of personal necessity.