JAGDISH CHANDER Vs. MOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE landlord Mohan Singh, filed the ejectment application against his tenants Jagdish Chander and Ishwar Chand, on May 19, 1981, on the allegations that the premises were let out in September, 1978, at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. The tenants wherein arrears of rent from November, 1978 to April, 1981. In the reply filed on behalf of the tenants, the stand taken was that the rent was Rs. 125/- per month and not Rs. 300/- per month, as alleged. The rent up to January, 1981, had already been paid. The rent up to February, 1981, was also paid to Sham Singh, the son of the landlord. However, to save himself from eviction, the tenants tendered rent from February 1, 1981 to April 30, 1981 for three months only at the rate of Rs. 12/- per month along with interest and costs, in Court. The controversy before the Rent Controller was as to whether the tenants were in arrears of rent, as alleged by the landlord and what was the rate of rent. According to the learned Rent Controller, the rent of the demised premises was Rs. 125/- per month as asserted by the tenants and not Rs. 300/-, as claimed by the landlord. As regards the payment of rent, the learned Rent Controller found that tenant had failed to establish that they had paid the arrears of rent prior to January, 1981, to the landlord and, therefore, they were in arrears of rent from November, 1978 to January, 1981. In view of these findings, the eviction order was passed on May 6, 1982. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the eviction order.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the rate of rent was found to be Rs. 125/- per month in view of the entries in the house-tax register of the municipal committee. Therefore, the said finding was not challenged in appeal by the landlord. Moreover, the ejectment application was filed within three years claiming arrears of rent for the said period and, therefore, there was nothing wrong or illegal therein. According to the learned counsel, both the authorities below, on the appreciation of the entire evidence, found that the tenants were in arrears of rent and that being a finding of fact, could not be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction.