AVINASH CHANDER Vs. MULKH RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mulkh Raj and his son S. K. Anand instituted five separate eviction applications against their tenants Abnash Chander and Akash Chander on the ground of non-payment of rent. These five applications relate to the period 28th August, 1974 to 27th July, 1977. By the impugned order. the Rent Controller has closed the evidence of the tenants in all the five cases above-said. Hence, they have filed the present revision petition and also revision petitions Nos. 1617 to 1620 of 1978. Since the main grounds urged before me are common to all the petitions, therefore, they can be disposed of by one judgment.

(2.) Referring to the mala fide conduct of the landlord, learned counsel for the tenants urged before me that before the filing of the five eviction applications in question, the landlords had filed as many as 16 applications of eviction on the same ground that is, the non-payment of rest. It was stated at the bar here that the tenants did not at all mean to be the defaulters and they were even prepared to pay as much rent in advance as the landlords may agree to accept but no response to this offer was received from the landlords. Accordingly, learned counsel for the tenants legitimately drew an inference that the conduct of the landlords in filing applications after applications for eviction on the above-said ground indicated that the landlords were on the look out to trap the tenants and get their eviction on any technical ground that either the rent tendered is less or the interest thereon is less, so on and so forth.

(3.) For further highlighting the mala fide conduct of the landlords, learned counsel for the tenants contended that the rent deed was executed on 28th December, 1968. At the time, one month's rent was received in advance by the landlords but it was stipulated that the rent would become due on the date which the tenants took possession of the property in question. Since the possession was taken over on 16th January, 1969, therefore, the tenants have been treating that as the date for the commencement of the tenancy in relation to the computation of rent. In the previous 16 applications, although the rent was claimed from 28th of the month, yet the tenants relying on their interpretation above-said paid rent on the first hearing of the eviction applications by calculating that from the 16th of the month. In all the said applications, after accepting the rent as calculated by the tenants from 16th of the month, the landlords withdrew from the proceedings, but in the instant five applications the landlords have taken a some result by asserting that the rent becomes due from the 28th day of the month and not the 16th of the following month. Faced with this situation, the tenants were constrained to summon the writer of the rent deed, Mulkh Raj landlord and other relevant witnesses. Mulkh Raj appeared in Court but feigned to have no knowledge of the date of the commencement of the tenancy by deposing that he was too old to remember. In this situation the tenants had no option but to summon their second landlord, namely, S.K. Anand, son of Mulkh Raj. He evaded to appear in the witness box. It will not be out of place to mention here that after the filing of the present five revision petitions in this Court, the landlords instituted three more applications for eviction of the tenants on the same ground of non-payment of rent. With a view to highlight the contumacious conduct of the landlords, certified copies of the statements of the parties made before the Rent Controller were placed before me. In case No. 45 instituted on 30th April, 1979, the counsel for the tenants made the following statement on 26th July, 1979 :