OM PARKASH Vs. AMI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LANDLORD filed a eviction petition No. 59-R of 1987, vide which arrears of rent had been claimed with effect from 1.11.1986 to 31.10.1987. The tenant tendered the demanded arrears of rent on December 5, 1987 before the Rent Controller, which was accepted by the landlord, and the petition was dismissed on February 1, 1988. It is alleged that the tenant sent a money order of Rs. 200/- on account of arrears of rent for four months as the monthly tenancy was at the rate of Rs. 50/-. The rent was sent for the period of November 1987 to February 1988 and that the said amount was duly received by the landlord. However, another petition was filed by the landlord registered as No. 79 of 1989 vide which the arrears of rent have been claimed with effect from 1.2.1988 to 30.6.1989. The tenant after having put in appearance tendered the said rent on October 27, 1989 under protest with the reservation that he has already paid the rent upto February 1988 but despite this reservation, the counsel for the landlord accepted the tender and intentionally did not disclose/admit the rent having been received by him for the month of February 1988. Resultantly, the landlord is stated to have violated the provisions of the Act.

(2.) ON the aforesaid premises, an application under Section 22 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") has been filed on January 4, 1990. It has been categorically averred that the rent had been duly paid to the landlord through a money-order in the sum of Rs. 200/- against the arrears of rent of four months i.e. November 1987 to February 1988 and that the amount had been duly received. Again an application for eviction had been filed for non-payment of rent with effect from February 1988 to February 1989.

(3.) THE parties have led their respective supporting evidence. Upon perusal of the same, the Rent Controller has arrived at a categoric finding that the rent for the month of February 1988 had been duly received by the landlord. The plea of rent having been enhanced has not been accepted on the premises that the rent tendered at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month for the period November 1, 1986 to October 31, 1987, in the previous application filed for eviction on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent, has been duly accepted by the landlord. There was no reason or question for enhancing the rent and, therefore, the plea of the landlord is totally misconceived and the same has been set up only to avoid prosecution. The petition which has been filed by which the rent has been claimed with effect from February 1988 to June 1989, the landlord has received the rent at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month and the counsel for the landlord has made the statement accordingly by virtue of which the petition was got dismissed. The statement has been exhibited as Ex. A3. This corroborates the fact succinctly that the rent has been received twice over by the landlord knowing well that in the first instance the amount had been received through the money order and second time by way of the aforesaid petition. The Rent Controller has, therefore, given a categoric finding in this regard and has held the landlord guilty of the offence. Resultantly, the sanction has been granted for prosecution of the landlord vide order dated 17.1.1994 in view of the judicial pronouncement of this Court rendered in re: Ajit Kumar Jain v. Jageer Chand, 1984(2) RCR 35.