MUNI LAL Vs. UDAI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-landlord filed petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for ejectment of the respondent from the shop, in dispute, on account of non-payment of rent. The case put up by the petitioner in the suit is that he had rented out the shop, in dispute, to Uday Chand-respondent in the year 1989 @ Rs. 1,000/- per month. The respondent paid advance rent of one year @ Rs. 1,000/- per month and executed the Rent Note dated 17-07-1989 which was Exhibit A-1. The said Rent Note was signed in the presence of witnesses Subhash Kumar and Chaman Lal. He continued to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month till 31-10-1990 but from 01-04-1999 onwards, the respondent did not pay the rent to the petitioner. The rent of three years had become due. Accordingly, the rent petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 was filed before the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller allowed the Eviction Petition vide order dated 15-09-2006 and passed a conditional eviction order against the respondent allowing him one month's time to deposit the arrears of rent failing which he was ordered to be ejected from the shop, in dispute. The respondent challenged the ejectment order before the Appellate Authority, Barnala. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order vide judgment dated 03-09-2007, holding that the execution of the Rent Note and landlord tenant relationship was doubtful. The case put up by the respondent and pleaded was that :- (a) There exist no landlord tenant relationship between the parties. (b) He had taken the shop, in dispute, on rent from one Kewal Krishan son of Chamba Ram, at a monthly rent of Rs. 200/- and he had tendered the rent of the shop, in dispute, @ Rs. 200/- p.m. w.e.f. 31-10-1999.

(2.) MR . L.N. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner opened the arguments by submitting that the Appellate Authority should not have relied upon the testimony of expert witness-Sumir Kumar Arora (RW3) as he had specifically admitted that he compared the disputed signatures of the respondent with the signatures, as pointed out by the counsel for the respondent which had been obtained out of the Court. The expert was supposed to compare the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures of the respondent, taken in the Court itself. Hence, the ocular evidence adduced by the petitioner in order to prove the execution of the Rent Note (Ex.A-1) ought to have been preferred by the Expert opinion. Secondly, the Appellate Authority had failed to consider the stand of the respondent that he had taken the shop in dispute from Kewal Krishan on monthly rent of Rs. 200/-.

(3.) FOURTHLY , the respondent had tendered the rent of the shop, in dispute, with interest and cost as determined by the Rent Controller for the period from 01-11-1999 to 31-03-2003 without any objection and without any condition vide his statement dated 20-02-2003. Thus, the only inference on the statement of the respondent that can be drawn is that the respondent disputed only the rate of the rent and has thus accepted the ownership of the petitioner and the fact that he was a landlord and not Kewal Krishan.