BALDEVA Vs. SHANTI SARUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON October 13, 1970, Shanti Sarup respondent filed a petition for eviction of Baldeva petitioner from the premises in dispute situate in Mohalla Majri Ramdassian vide house tax No. 710-711 at Sadhaura, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala, on the grounds of non-payment of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 6/- per month with effect from May 15, 1961, and the petitioner having materially impaired the value and utility of the house. The petitioner did not tender the arrears of rent claimed by the respondent and further pleaded that he was in occupation of the premises as owner and not as tenant under the respondent. The Rent Controller vide order dated November 17, 1978, held that the petitioner was in occupation of the premises as a tenant under the respondent. He was liable to be evicted on both grounds, namely, having not tendered the arrears of rent and having materially impaired the value and utility of the building. The petitioner assailed the order of the Rent Controller in appeal which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated November 30, 1979. The petitioner has assailed the orders of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority in the present revision.

(2.) THE respondent produced P.W. Raj Kumar, Clerk, Municipal Committee, Sadhaura, who produced copies from the assessment register relating to the premises in dispute. P.W. Ram Chander proved the rent note Exhibit A.11 dated September 18, 1954, executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent. The respondent himself supported his case.

(3.) THE petitioner executed the sale-deed Exhibit A.W.10/1 of the premises in dispute dated July 17, 1950, in favour of the respondent. The petitioner further executed the rent note Exhibit A.1 dated September 18, 1954, of the same premises in favour of the respondent. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have concurrently found that the respondent is the owner of the premises and the petitioner is in occupation thereof as a tenant under him. In view of the evidence led by the parties, there is hardly any justification to interfere with the concurrent finding on this point.