A.P.MISRA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The present revision is directed against an order dated 2.9.1987 by virtue of which the plaintiff's suit for arrears of rent and eviction had been decreed. The main argument placed on behalf of the applicant was that the trial Court wrongly shifted the burden of proof on the defendant while deciding issue No. 1 on the question of rent. It has recorded a finding that the plaintiff has failed to prove any rent note or receipt showing that the rent was Rs. 250 per month. The case of the plaintiff-respondent was that the rent of the accommodation in question was Rs. 250, while the case of the applicant was that the rent was only Rs. 50 per month. On that issue, the trial Court rejected the claim of the plaintiff by saying that he would have proved it either on the basis of rent note or any receipt of the amount having been paid. It is on this basis the trial Court held on issue No. 1 as aforesaid.
(2.) THE principle regarding the burden of proof is well settled. It is a party which alleges a fact and wants to prove it then the burden lies on him. Issue No. 1 was that whether the rate of rent was Rs. 250 or Rs. 50 and it is the burden on the plaintiff whether rate of rent was enhanced upto Rs. 250 or not and Court very rightly rejected the same that the plaintiff had not proved by means of any document. While deciding the question of default by the defendant-applicant it is for him to prove that he has paid the rent and has not defaulted. In case applicant's case was that landlord did not issue any receipt then the burden will remain on him to prove by other evidence to show that there was no default and he has paid the rent in question. In the present case the defendant having failed to prove the same finding and finding having been recorded, there was nothing wrong in the impugned order which calls for interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the applicant then urged that since the assessment order has not been filed, the decision that the building would not be covered by the Act is not sustainable. The argument is misconceived. The question regarding proof by way of the assessment order only comes into play subsequent to the construction being completed. In the present case finding of fact has been recorded that construction was in the year 1980 and, therefore, the assessment could not be of a date prior to the said construction. The assessment order is always subsequent to the construction and since even on this date then years have not expired, the building was rightly held not to be covered by the said Act. Learned counsel for the applicant also urged that it was an old construction and it was in a dilapidated condition. I have perused the impugned order of the trial Court. I do not find anything which calls for interference in the said finding. The main reliance made by the learned counsel for the applicant was on the portion of evidence recorded by trial Court that PW-3 himself stated that there was reconstruction of the dilapidated building and also of shop earlier. It is urged that since it has recorded a finding that there was a shop which is dilapidated and reconstructed, these are sufficient grounds that findings recorded by him is not sustainable for that purpose. I have examined the statement recorded by PW-3 and I find that there is no such statement made by him that the disputed house was reconstructed on the old dilapidated construction. It was said about 7-8 years back and earlier that on the western side there was one kotha in the said house and there was small thatched hut and a kachcha boundary wall. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant also cannot take help on the basis of said statement recorded in the judgment itself. On the aforesaid fact, I do not find that any sustainable ground is raised which calls for interference of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
(3.) THE present revision is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed.;