TARSEM LAL Vs. RAVINDER NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the tenant's revision against the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority holding him to be in arrears of rent determined at the rate of 500/- rupees per month.

(2.) THE respondent-landlord instituted an eviction petition under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on the ground that the petitioner was tenant in one Khokha measuring 14x9 feet, situated on Khasra No.4591/1 in Ward No.7 at Bhunter in Kullu. The allegation in the eviction petition was that the Khokha had been constructed by the respondent-landlord and was being used as a workshop by the tenant- petitioner for carrying on his business. Rent at the rate of Rs.500/- per month was claimed by the respondent-landlord and it was also averred that he was in arrears of rent from August, 1994 till date of filing of the petition. The tenant-petitioner contested the petition on a number of grounds inter alia that the landlord was not the owner of the land, the rent was not fixed at Rs.500/- per month, the petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties etc. On a consideration of the entire evidence, the learned trial Court held that there was no substance in the submissions made by the tenant-petitioner that the respondent-landlord was not the owner of the premises. The learned Rent Controller concluded that the petitioner was not in arrears of the rent at the rate as claimed by the respondent-landlord. An issue regarding adverse possession has also been raised on the plea of the tenant that the petition was barred by limitation. This issue was not pressed. On the issue of adverse possession, the learned Rent Controller held in favour of the respondent-landlord. I must express my surprise at the manner in which the petition has been adjudicated since claim of title is never determined under the Act and these are issues which are in the exclusive domain of the Civil Court.

(3.) IN the landlord's appeal to the learned Appellate Authority, the entire evidence was considered by the learned Court being the final court of fact and it was held that the findings of the learned Rent Controller holding that the rate of rent was not Rs.500/- per month was not correct. Learned Appellate Authority has considered the evidence in detail and has given cogent and convincing reasons for rejecting the same. The learned Court held that reliance placed by the tenant on some compromise having been effected before the Gram Panchayat could not be relied upon because no document evidencing such compromise showing creation of tenancy had been produced on the record of the case and the oral submission made by the tenant-petitioner was not sufficient to establish the existence of such arrangement establishing his tenancy under the Panchayat. Exs.R-1 to R-3, in the nature of receipts, produced by the tenant to show that he was paying rent, at the rate as alleged by him, to the respondent-landlord did not establish the identity of the property qua which such rent was being paid, as house number, khasra number etc. was not mentioned therein. The learned Appellate Authority noted in detail that Exs.R-1 to R-6 are receipts issued by the Notified Area Committee, Bhunter pertaining to House Tax in the name of Laj Wanti and not of the petitioner. The other evidence on the record in the nature of installation of the electric meter by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board also did not identify the premises but only the name of the petitioner.