HARNAM SINGH Vs. MOHINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's revision directed against the judgments of the Authorities below whereby the application filed against the tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent has been dismissed.

(2.) EJECTMENT of the tenant (respondent herein) was sought by the landlord (petitioner herein) on the ground of non-payment of rent. Petitioner in his eviction application pleaded that the tenant is occupying the entire ground floor including a garage and one room above garage since January, 1989. Petitioner alleged that tenant has not paid the arrears of rent since 1. 7. 1989. On notice of the eviction application, tenant appeared and filed his written statement. Tenant denied the rate of rent to be Rs. 2500/ -. He stated that he took the premises way back in the year 1982 at a monthly rent of Rs. 600.00 which was subsequently increased to Rs. 800.00 and at present, the same stands at Rs. 1100.00 per month. He denied that he is in arrears of rent. He stated that he has paid the rent upto February, 1992 in cash and for the months of March and April, 1992, tendered the same together with interest and costs in court for payment to the petitioner. Petitioner accepted the rent under protest by saying that the tender made is short. Petitioner in his replication denied the stand of the tenant in regard to rate of rent and payment upto February, 1992, and reiterated that the rent is Rs. 2500.00 per month and the tenant is in arrears of rent w. e. f. 1. . 1989. Petitioner also denied that respondent took the premises on rent in 1982. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues: 1. Whether the premises were taken on rent by the respondent since 1982 and not since January, 1989 ?. OPA. 2. Whether the rate of rent from the very beginning is Rs. 2500.00 p. m. and the premises were not taken on rent initially @ Rs. 600.00 which was subsequently increased to Rs. 800.00 and then to Rs. 2500.00 ?. OPA. 2-A. Whether the tender made by the respondent is legal and valid ?. OPA.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length, I am of the view that no case is made out for interference. Rent Controller and the appellate Authority have concurrently found that the tenant took the premises on rent in 1982. In fact at the threshold, tenant had submitted that he took the premises on rent in the year 1982 and the rent was Rs. 600.00 which was subsequently increased to Rs. 800.00 and then to Rs. 1100.00 per month. Landlord had the opportunity to come clean by admitting that he let out the premises in 1982 and the rate of rent initially was settled at Rs. 600/ -. He however, chose to persist with his stand which has been found to be false. The finding of the Rent Controller in regard to falsity of the claim of the landlord, reads as under :