BISHAN SINGH Vs. SHRI CHATTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point involved in this revision is whether the tender made by the tenant on the first date of hearing represented the entire arrears of rent in accordance with law or not. The point arises out of the following facts :-

(2.) The respondent-landlord filed an ejectment application against the petitioner on 19th of August, 1971, on the ground of nonpayment of rent since 1st of October, 1968, and the agreed rent was stated to be Rs. 115/- per mensesm. The tenant in defence took up the stand that the rate of rent was Rs. 70/- per memsem and that he had paid the same till 30th of June, 1969. On the first date of hearing the tenant tendered the arrears with effect from 1st of July, 1969, at the rate of Rs. 70/- per mensem alongwith interest and costs. This tender was not accepted by the landlord being invalid as the tender of full arrears of rent had not been made. The Rent Controller framed various issues but we are concerned with issues Nos. 3 and 4 which were to the effect whether the rent was Rs. 115/- or Rs. 70/- per mensem. The Rent Controller, by order dated 28th of February, 1973, held that the rent was Rs. 115/- per mensem and since the tender made by the tenant was short the ordered his eviction. The tenant filed an appeal which also met with no success and was dismissed by the Appellate Authority by order dated 2nd of August, 1974.

(3.) Only a question of fact is involved as to whether the rent was Rs. 115/- or Rs 70/- per mensem and in this regard, in support of this revision, the counsel has not been able to raise any meaningful challenge against the appellate order a part from raising the same argument which has already been declined by the Appellate Authority by a well reasoned order. No receipt showing earlier payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 70/- per mensem has been produced by the tenant nor is there any rent note for that amount. The entry in the municipal records for purposes of assessment of house tax would be of no avail to the petitioner in view of Exhibit A-3 and the statement of Ramesh Kumar AW 2 which show that Joga Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of the landlord, had shown the annual rent of the house in dispute for purposes of income tax as Rs. 1380/-, which comes to Rs. 115/- per mensem. Accordingly, the decisions of the Courts below are based on evidence and no contrary view is possible.