MRS. GURTEJ SIDHU Vs. A.S. RATTAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ABOVE Civil Revision No. 4738 of 2004 and Civil Revision No. 240 of 2005 arise out of proceedings before the Rent Controller in Rent Petition No. 62 of 2000. The landlord has sought eviction on the ground of nonpayment of rent and for personal requirement of the landlord. The Rent Controller upheld the contention of the landlord and directed ejectment. However, as regards arrears of rent determined as payable for 24 months, the Rent Controller observed that the tenant shall have time upto 11.03.2002 for payment, failing which he should be held as liable to be evicted on the ground of non -payment of rent also. The tenant had been granted two months to vacate the premises.

(2.) THE appeal was filed by the tenant and he had also deposited the amount as directed. His grievance was against the' finding rendered by the Rent Controller regarding the alleged personal requirement of the landlord as well as the fact that the Rent Controller decided that there had been arrears for 24 months. The Appellate Court maintained the order of ejectment on the ground of non -payment of rent but however held that the plea of the landlord that the property was required for the personal occupation of the landlord had not been established. The Appellate Authority observed that putting himself in the place of the landlord, he found that the element of need to occupy the premises in dispute was missing in that case and further stated that reasons tendered by the landlord did not appeal to him and that he was setting aside the finding of the Rent Controller.

(3.) THE ground urged by the tenant as regards the non -payment of rent is restricted to the rejection of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority about the genuineness of the receipts which he produced as proof of payment of rents during the relevant period. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Court found that the signature found in Ex.R -1 had been admitted to contain the signature of petitioner's mother but Ex.R -2 and Ex.R -3 relating to the period from April 1997 to May, 1999 did not contain the mother's signatures. Having regard to the denial of the signatures as found, Rent Controller found, which the Appellate Authority affirmed, that the tenant had not established by any independent evidence that the receipts were true. The authorities below observed that the sole statement of the respondent was not sufficient to prove the payment of rents. Citing 'Rakesh Wadhan v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, time had been granted to the tenant to pay the rent before 11.8.2002. It appears that the appeal has been filed and the stay had been granted by the appellate court and it had directed that the rent be paid before 13.9.2002. That tenant had also deposited the sum on 12.9.2002, complying the order of the Appellate Authority. The ground of eviction, therefore, for non -payment of rent did not any longer exist, but the counsel for the tenant only urged that the finding of non -payment of rent which have been established through Ex.R -1 to Ex.R -3 was not tenable. The genuineness of the documents have been adjudicated by both the authorities below, as not having been established by the tenant. I do not think that there is any scope for reversal of a finding of fact and therefore, I affirm the findings rendered with regard to the genuineness of documents Ex.R -1 and Ex.R -3.