AMEEK SINGH Vs. D.N. GAUR, CHIEF ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant, who has been directed to be evicted by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, is the revision-petitioner before this Court. The non-payment of rent on the basis of which the landlord sought for eviction was for a period from 01.03.2004 to 31.03.2005 at Rs. 4,000/- per month and a sum of Rs. 6,500/- was also reported as outstanding towards arrears of house tax. The contention on behalf of the respondent was that although the rent note was for Rs. 4,000/-, there was an oral agreement to reduce the rent to Rs. 3,000/- and it had also been admitted so in the evidence of the landlord. The further contention was that he had paid rent at all times and there was no default. An additional plea in alternation was that the tenant had paid Rs. 3 lakhs pursuant to an oral agreement to purchase the property and even if the agreement could not be enforced, the said amount ought to have been directed to be adjusted against the amount that is found due. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority rejected the contention of the tenant finding that there was no proof for payment of lease for the relevant period and directed eviction.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the revision-petitioner contends that the quantum of rent as having been reduced from Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 3,000/- was admitted in the evidence of the landlord and referred to his statement in his cross-examination, " he (tenant) told that he can give the rent at Rs. 3,000/- per month from July (2004) and he agreed for the same. But he did not give complete rent upto July, 2003" (sic). Elsewhere in the cross-examination, the landlord had also admitted, "it is correct that in Ex.R-1, I asked the rent from Ameek Singh at Rs. 3,000/- per month." The learned counsel, therefore, contended that the rent had been reduced only to Rs. 3,000/- and the finding of the two Courts below that the tenant was in arrears of rent @ Rs. 4,000/- per month was erroneous.

(3.) AS regards the actual quantum of rent payable, the landlord's application was founded on a rent note under which the tenant had admitted himself to be liable to pay rent @ Rs. 4,000/- per month. He was pleading for an oral agreement for a reduction of rent to Rs. 3,000/-. While alteration of the terms of an agreement reduced in writing by oral evidence is inadmissible by virtue of Section 92 of the Evidence Act, the learned counsel pleaded for such a case in view of the admission made by the landlord that the tenant was expressing a difficulty for payment of Rs. 4,000/- and offered to pay only Rs. 3,000/-. In my view, even a notice requiring him to pay Rs. 3,000/- will not conclude the issue, for, there is no case of waiver of the entitlement of the landlord to receive a sum in excess of Rs. 3,000/-. It could at best be only taken that the landlord was prepared to give a temporary reprieve to the tenant to pay a lesser amount. If there had been a non-payment of the portion of the rent on a difficulty expressed by a tenant and the landlord was prepared to condone the same, it is wholly a different matter and the default in paying a portion of the rent may not amount to any willful conduct on the part of the tenant. It would not, however, completely make the tenant free of liability for making the payment of even the admitted amount. If the landlord had, in a case of such default, asked for the amount agreed under the Rent note the tenant can not defeat the landlord's right by a plea that he was demanding more than what was subsequently orally agreed to. Therefore, I find that although the landlord had given evidence to the effect that he had demanded @ Rs. 3,000/- through R-1, it cannot still be contended that the agreed rate was only Rs. 3,000/-. If the tenant had paid that amount, he would have been entitled to such concession only to ward of eviction. When he did not pay any amount, the landlord would be entitled to compute the subsisting liability @ Rs. 4,000/- per month.