UNION RADIOS Vs. VIDYA WATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition against whom eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below.

(2.) THE landlords Shrimati Vidya Wati and Ram Tirath sought the ejectment of their tenant Ram Parkash inter alia on the ground that he was in arrears of rent with effect from June 1, 1979. The ejectment application was field on March 2, 1981. According to the landlords, the rent agreed between the parties originally when the premises were let out in February, 1973, was Rs. 100/- per month. From June 1, 1979, the same was increased to Rs. 180/- per month. The stand taken by the tenant was that the rent was Rs. 100/- per month only. It was never increased to Rs. 180/- per month from June 1, 1979, as alleged. It was denied that he was in arrears of rent with effect from June 1, 1979, onwards. According to the tenant, the arrears of rent up to December 31, 1980 had already been paid. According to him he had to tender before the Rent Controller the arrears of rent with effect from February 12, 1980, onwards, on the first date of hearing. He further pleaded that the rent paid to the landlord is entered in his account books which are regularly maintained. The writing, Exhibit A-2, alleged to have been written by the tenant was denied and it was pleaded that it was a forged one. The learned Rent Controller found that the rent was Rs. 100/- per month and that it was never increased from June 1, 1979, as claimed by the landlords. It was further found that the tenant was in arrears of rent with effect from June 1, 1979 to December 31, 1980, as he had failed to prove by any cogent evidence that he had paid the rent at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month to the landlords. It was observed by the learned Rent Controller :-

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that according to R.W. 2 Subhash Chander, rent up to December 31, 1980, was paid on April 6, 1981, whereas the ejectment application had already been filed on March 2, 1981. Thus, argued the learned counsel, there was absolutely no occasion to make the payment after the ejectment application had already been filed. Moreover, argued the learned counsel, no receipts obtained by the tenant as admitted by him in his statement, were produced by him. Under the circumstances, it has been rightly held by the authorities below that the tenant was in arrears of rent and the said finding should not be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction.