B.R. PURI Vs. PURAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlords' revision petition in whose favour eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller, but the same was set aside in appeal by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) THE landlords sought the ejectment of tenant Puran Chand from the house in dispute on the ground of non-payment of the arrears of rent from June 1, 1966 to January 31, 1970 at the rate of Rs. 115 amounting to Rs. 5,060 and from June 1, 1972 to May 31, 1973, at the same rate amounting to Rs. 1455 total Rs. 6,555. As regards the rent for the period from February, 1970 to May, 1972, it was stated in the ejectment application that the tenant had deposited the same from February, 1970 to September, 1971, in the Estate Office, Chandigarh and had paid the rent from October, 1971 to May, 1972, to the landlords. In the written statement, it was pleaded that the tenant had paid rent to the landlords up to May 31, 1972, that for the period from June 1, 1972 to May 31, 1973, rent amounting to Rs. 1,495 was tendered on the first date of hearing. The learned Rent Controller found that the tenant had committed default by not tendering the arrears of rent for the whole period from June 1, 1966 to January 1, 1970 and consequently, the eviction order was passed against him, though the tender of the arrears of rent from June 1, 1972 to May 31, 1973 was found to be valid. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that no rent was due to the landlords for the said period as found by the Rent Controller. It was also observed by it that it seemed unreasonable to believe that the tenant was not paying any rent and still he was allowed to continue in possession of the rented premises for all that period from June 1, 1966 to the date of the institution of the suit for ejectment. It was, therefore, ultimately held that it was fair to raise the presumption that the rent prior to May 31, 1972 had been paid by the tenant either directly to R.N. Puri, landlord or to his legal representatives or he had deposited the same on their behalf in the Estate Office. Consequently, the eviction order was set aside. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlords have filed this revision petition in this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this petition.