M. P. Saxena, J. - (1.) THIS is a defendant's revision application against the decree for ejectment passed by the learned District Judge, Muzaffarnagar on 15-2--1977.
(2.) IN short the facts are that the plaintiff-opposite party filed a suit for ejectment of the defendant-revisionist from the premises in suit on the ground that he was a tenant at Rs. 30/- per month, that he fell in arrears of rent from 1-5-1970, that a notice to quit was given on 31-10-1973 which was served on the defendant on 1-11-1973. Thereafter a money order for incorrect amount was sent which he refused to accept. Therefore, the defendant became liable to ejectment. The defendant-revisionist contested the suit on the grounds that upto 31-3-1973 rent ot the premises was Rs. 5/- and from 1-4-1973 it was raised to Rs. 10/- per uiontn. Money order was sent at the same rate which the plaintiff refused to accept. In tnis way there was no default and he was not liable to ejectment. The trial court came to the conclusion that there was no default and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff bled a revision and before the learned District Judge copy of assessment list tor the period 1-4-1968 to 31-3- 1973 was also filed and according to it, rent to the premises was Rs. 10/- per month. Therefore, the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the defendant should have paid rent at the rate ot Rs. 5/- per montu upto 1-4-1968 and at the rate ot Rs. 10/- per month thereafter. As he offered rent at the rate Rs. 5/- upto 1- 4-1973 he did not discharge his entire liability for rent and was liable to ejectment. He accordingly decreed the suit for ejectment.
(3.) THE defendant has filed this revision and his contention is that the learned lower revisional court had no jurisdiction to admit the Assessment List for 1-4-1968 to 31-3-1973 in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. THE contention does not carry much force because this document was filed on 13- 1-1970, after serving a copy of the application on the defendant's counsel the application came up for hearing on 15-2-1977. THE defendant did not chose to file any objection. Since this document was relevant for fjust decision of the case the court allowed it to be brought on the record. It appears that the defendant had not only filed no objections to the application for filing that document but had also given out that he will not file any document in rebuttal. In these circumstances there was no error on the part of the court in admitting this document and more so when there was no objection against it nor it was sought to be rebutted. After the document was admitted the position emerging from the material on the record was that from 1951 to 1956 the house was assessed at a rent of Rs. 5/- per month. Again from 1963 to 1968 it was assessed at the same rent. From 1-4-1973 the rent was Rs. 10/-. The defendant for reasons best known to him did not file copy of the Assessment Register from 1968 to 1973. It was done by the plaintiff in revision and it showed that during this period the house was assessed at a rent of Rs. 10/- per month. Therefore, if all this evidence is taken into consideration it becomes evident that rent of this house from 1-4-1968 was Rs. 10/- p. m. The notice of demand was served on 1-11-1973. The rent was due from May, 1970. The defendant was liable to pay it at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month but after 1-4-1973 he offered at the rate of Rs. 5/- only. The plaintiff was perfectly justified in refusing to accept the rent. Therefore, the lower revisional court was right in holding that full amount was not offered by the defendant and he committed default of its payment.;