SMT. PARKASH KAUR Vs. SMT. NARINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been filed to challenge the order of the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, dated August 24, 1977, confirming on appeal the order of the Rent Controller.

(2.) The respondent purchased the house in dispute on August 16, 1972 from Yashpal, A.W.1. According to the averments made in the petition at the time of the purchase of the house, the petitioner was occupying one room as a tenant. After the purchase she let out varandah, kitchen and a store together with the room already in her possession and the rent was increased from Rs. 18 to Rs. 50 per month. There remained one room in the house which was not let out to the petitioner and was occupied by the respondent herself. The present application was filed by the respondent for the ejectment of the petitioner on two grounds, namely, non-payment of the rent since October 1972 and that she required the premises for her own occupation. The petitioner contested the petition and denied the allegations made therein. She further pleaded that she was the tenant of the disputed premises from the last 13 years at the rate of Rs. 18 per month and deposited the rent, interest and costs at that rate. The Rent Controller, after recording the evidence of the parties, upheld both the pleas and ordered the ejectment of the petitioner. Having failed even in appeal filed before the Appellate Authority, she has come up in this revision petition.

(3.) The Rent Controller, as well as the Appellate Authority, for recording the finding that the demised premises were let out on a monthly rent of Rs. 50 on Exhibit A-2, the receipt executed by the respondent alleged to be bearing the signatures of the petitioner as well. To prove this document, the respondent gave her own statement and relied on the statement of Khushinderjit Singh A.W.4. The persual of the statements of the respondent and A.W.4 would show that no reliance can be placed on the statements. The respondent in her statement could not say when this document was executed, who wrote this document and to which month it related. So far as A.W.4 is concerned he has not signed this document. Anybody can be picked up to state that it was written in the presence. Although, the respondent did not name as to who wrote this document, his witness named one Inderjit Sharma. But, no attempt was made to produce that person in the witness-box. The concurrent finding, therefore, cannot be sustained as it could not be recorded by any reasonable person on the evidence available on the record. The finding being perverse has to be reversed and it is held that the respondent has failed to prove Exhibit A-2 which allegedly bears the signature of the petitioner. Once the document, Exhibit A-2 is ruled out, there is no reliable evidence on the record from which it could be held that any additional accommodation was let out to the petitioner in the year 1972 and that the rent was increased from Rs. 18 to Rs. 50 per month. Consequently, the order of the authorities below that the tenant has failed to pay the agreed rent has also to be reversed and it is held that the tenant has deposited the agreed rate of rent together with interest and costs. The order of ejectment on the ground of non-payment of the rent, therefore, cannot be sustained.