LACHHMAN DASS Vs. SHRI RAJESHWAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent landlord filed an ejectment application for eviction of the petitioner tenant from the shop in dispute on three grounds, namely, the non-payment of the rent, non-occupation of the shop for a continuous period of five years without reasonable cause and causing deterioration and impairment of its value and utility.

(2.) The tenant, on appearance, tender the arrears of rent and controverted the other allegations. After recording evidence the Rent Controller upheld the other two grounds and ordered the ejectment. On appeal by the tenant, the order of the Rent Controller was confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide Judgment dated April 16, 1974. Still dissatisfied the tenant has come up in this revision petition under Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

(3.) The concurrent finding recorded by the two Courts below is essentially a finding of fact, but the learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the same on the ground that statements of R.W.2, R.W.3, and R.W.4 and the documents produced by them have not been considered by the Appellate Authority. A perusal of the judgment of the Rent Controller would show that all this evidence had been considered and rejected. In the lower appellate court reliance was only placed on octroi receipts, Exhibits R.W.3/1 to R.W.3/4 and those were rejected for valid reasons. All the same I went through the documents, Exhibit R.W.2/1 to R.W2/7; R.W.3/1 to R.W.3/4 and R.W.4/1 to R.W.4/6 and the statements of the said witnesses and found that they were not worth relying. Exhibits R.W.2/1 to R.W.2/7 and R.W.4/1 to R.W.4/5 are copies of the bills showing purchase of certain goods by the tenant. Carbon copies or Bill Books pertaining to these bills have not been produced nor the tenant or his witnesses produced account books to support payment evidence by these bills. In these circumstances no reliance can be placed on these documents as the same could be prepared at any time. The other two documents as already noticed were rejected on the ground that they pertained to another shop. It appears, therefore, that reliance was not rightly placed by the petitioner on these documents and statements of the witnesses before the Appellate Authority.