DHANPAT RAI TANEJA Vs. JAGDISH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant who was successful in resisting an action for eviction suffered a reversal of fortune in the Appellate Court when he was directed to be evicted upholding the contention of the landlord that the tenant had not paid rent as agreed between the parties and that he was hence liable to be evicted on the ground of non-payment of rent. Yet another ground of eviction namely the conduct of the respondent that had caused material impairment of the building was later given up at the Appellate Court by the landlord and therefore the revision was admitted only on the consideration of the issue relating to non-payment of rent.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY , there was no written document of tenancy between the parties and quantum of rent was a matter for adjudication before the Rent Controller. While the tenant had contended that the rent was received at Rs. 180/- per month which included the house tax, the tenant's contention was that he had come by possession of the property undertaking to pay rent at Rs. 23/- per month since 1968, but however as per the assessment of the Municipal Committee, he had been tendering the rent at Rs. 75/- which according to the tenant was accepted without demur by the landlord. The Rent Controller found, on appreciation of evidence of both the parties, that the rent was only Rs. 75/- and not Rs. 180/- as contended by the landlord and dismissed the petition for eviction. At the Appellate Court, while setting out the burden of proof correctly on the landlord, the Appellate Authority looked for evidence whether he had established that the rent was only Rs. 180/- per month. His line of reasoning was that the copy of the house tax assessment which was marked as P-2, showed that the annual value of set of six shops was Rs. 11,220/- and if the annual value was to be divided by six, the annual value of a unit measuring 12' x 8' under the occupation of the tenant i.e. came to Rs. 1870/-. Monthly rate of rent in such circumstance was arrived at Rs. 155.85 and adding the house tax component also the Appellate Authority found that the amount was only Rs. 180/-. Such arithmetic calculation which the Appellate Authority was making was really a case of special pleadings on behalf of the landlord, when such elaborate details had not been set forth even in the petition.

(3.) THE scheme of the Act under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, that allows the landlord to obtain an eviction spells out that a direction for eviction would be issued after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the application if it was satisfied that the tenant had not paid or tendered rent due from him in respect of the building either within 15 days after the expiry of time fixed in the agreement of tenancy or if the tenant had in spite of the original default paid the rent within a period of 15 days from the first hearing of the application for ejectment after due service along with interest and cost, the tenant would be deemed to have paid the rent within time as aforesaid. The Act itself provides that a landlord would not be entitled to claim arrears of rent for a term exceeding three years immediately preceding the date of the application under the provisions of the Act. The Act that condones the delay of a tenant in not paying the rent within time specified in the agreement but who makes up for the default by making the payment within 15 days of the first hearing of the application contains an inbuilt mechanism that a tenant is not visited with an order of eviction, unless there had been a case of defiance on his part.