DARSHAN SINGH Vs. RAJESH PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT Rajesh Pal Singh had filed a petition Under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent. Restriction Act (as applicable to U. T. Chandigarh) (hereinafter called the 'act') for ejectment of the present petitioner-tenant from house No. 3009/1, Sector 45-D, Chandigarh. The ground for ejectment was non-payment of rent since November 1, 1989. It was alleged in the petition that the house in question was let out to the tenant at the monthly rent of Rs. 550/besides water and electricity charges. The tenancy was oral and the tenant was in arrears of rent since November 1, 1989, which he had neither paid nor tendered.

(2.) THE tenant (petitioner in the present case) admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. However, it was alleged that in fact the rent was Rs. 250.00 per mensem and not Rs. 550.00 per mensem as claimed by the landlord. It was further alleged that the tenant had been paying the rent regularly but the landlord had refused to issue the receipts. As per the tenant, he had paid the rent upto December, 1991, and the landlord had refused to receive the rent w. e. f. January 1992. Rent for the months of January and February, 1992, at the rate of Rs. 250.00 per mensem was tendered along with interest and cost in the court.

(3.) I am of the view that the statements of these two witnesses could not be ignored on the ground that their names did not find mention in the pleadings. The pleadings were complete when it was alleged that the rate of rent was Rs. 550.00 per mensem. It is only when a tenant denies such a plea that the question of proof would come. In the replication it could be said that the rent was settled in the presence of such and such person or rent for a particular month was paid in the presence, of a particular person. It will be then seen as to whether the statement of such a witness inspires confidence and is to be believed or not. The ground for throwing out the evidence of the witnesses of the landlord, according to me, is not well based. Naturally, when the tenancy is oral, it can only be proved by oral evidence and the details of evidence are not to be pleaded in the ejectment petition.