- (1.) The tenant petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, Ambala dated 12th January 1978, whereby the order of the Rent Controller directing her ejectment has been maintained. The premises in dispute is a residential house, situated in Sadar Bazar, Ambala Cantt. An application for ejectment has been filed on 4th October, 1975 on the ground of non payment of rent from 1st April 1975 to 30th September, 1975, as well as on the ground of bonafide requirement of the premises for own use and occupation. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant, it was pleaded that the rent upto August, 1975, has been paid and nothing is due on the date of the application, and therefore, the question of any payment of tender on the first date of hearing did not arise. The other allegations were also controverted and on the pleadings of the parties the Rent Controller framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the respondent had paid the rent as alleged in the written statement 2. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected on the ground of personal necessity and otherwise 3. Whether the notice served is illegal On issue No. 1 the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that "I am convinced beyond any shadow of doubt that the respondent has not paid the rent to the applicant and as such she is in arrears of rent. Consequently he decided that this issue in favour of the landlord and against the tenant. On issue No. 2 the finding was in favour of the landlord as it was held that he bonafide requires the premises for his own use and occupation. In appeal both these findings have been affirmed by the Appellate Authority. Feeling aggrieved against this concurrent finding of both the authorities, the tenant has come in revision to this court.
(2.) After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in this petition. Admittedly, arrears of rent, as claimed by the landlord were not paid or tendered on the first date of hearing. The plea of the tenant that the payment of rent which could be said to have been due on the date of application, i.e. upto the end of August, 1975, has accepted by the both authorities below. After going through the statement made by the tenant in Court, I am satisfied that the conclusions arrived at on this issue deserve no interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The tenant stated in her statement at R.W. 3, that she had paid the rent upto February, 1977, when she appeared before the Rent Controller on 25th February, 1977. No receipt to that effect was produced. The plea taken was that the landlord never issued any such receipts. It can be hardly believed that a tenant will pay the arrears without any receipts, particularly when the litigation is going on between the parties. Under these circumstances, the plea of the tenant as to the payment of rent due at the time of application for ejectment has been rightly repelled. In view of this finding the controversy on issue No. 2 becomes redundant and need not be gone into in this petition.
(3.) For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and is dismissed with costs. However, the tenant-petitioner is allowed two months time to vacate the premises, provided all the arrears, if any and advance rent for two months is paid or deposited within 15 days from the date of the order.;