- (1.) This revision petition has been field by the tenant against an order of the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, dated March 22, 1978.
(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that Jagdish Lal landlord filed an application for ejectment of the tenant inter alia on the ground that he required the premises occupied by the tenant for his personal use and occupation. The other grounds were also taken but they are not relevant for the decision of this revision petition. The application was contested by the tenant, who pleaded that he was not a tenant under Jagdish Lal (now respondent in the revision petition) and that he did not require the premises for his own use the occupation. The learned Rent Controller gave a finding that Jagir Singh (now petitioner in the revision petition) as a tenant under Jagdish Lal respondent and that the respondent required the premises for his bonafide use and occupation. The tenant went up in appeal before the Appellate Authority, who affirmed the order of the Rent Controller and dismissed the same. The tenant has come up in revision to this Court.
(3.) The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is not proved to be a tenant under the respondent. He argues that the rent note, which is alleged to have been executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent, has been held to be inadmissible in evidence as it was an unregistered document. According to the counsel, Appellate Authority has taken into consideration the counterfoils of the receipts (Exhibits A6 to A15) given by Charan Dass, father of the respondent, to the tenant. He submits that from the receipts no inference can be drawn that the petitioner was a tenant under the respondent. He has also made a reference to Narota Ram v. Bhawant Krishan and others, 1960 62 PunLR 166, to support his argument. I have given due consideration to the argument of the learned counsel but regret my inability to accept it. The learned Appellate Authority after taking into consideration the evidence has come to the conclusion that the petitioner finding is a tenant under the respondent. That finding is a finding of fact and this Court will not interfere with such a finding. I have also gone through the statements of the witnesses produced by the petitioner. Charan Dass (A.W.4), father of the respondent, stated that he was Mukhtiar-e-am of his son, Jagdish Pal and that the house in dispute was the exclusive ownership of Jagdish Lal. He further stated that he had been recovering the rent of the house on behalf of his son. Similar statement was made by the respondent when he appeared as AW 3. The receipts (Exhibits A6 to A15) when read conjointly with the statements of Charan Dass and the respondent, clearly go to show that the petitioner had been paying rent to Charan Dass as a tenant of Jagdish Lal. In my view the finding of the Appellate Authority are correct and there is not scope for interference with the same. In Narota Ram's case an order of ejectment was passed against the tenant. After the passing of the order of ejectment, he paid the rent to the landlord which was accepted by him. An objection was raised by the tenant that the landlord had accepted the rent from him after the order of ejectment had been passed, in view of fresh agreement of lease and consequently he was not liable to ejectment in execution of the decree. It was observed by the learned Judge that unless the landlord and the tenant consciously agree to enter into a fresh lease and unless the landlord clearly gives up his rights under the eviction order passed under the Pepsu Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, the mere acceptance of an amount, whether described as rent or damages for use and occupation to which he would clearly be entitled, so long as the tenant or ex-tenant, by whatever name the person in possession is called, remains in occupation, would not take the eviction order incapable of execution. The aforesaid facts and observations go to show that the facts of that case were different. These observations are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Consequently, I reject the contention of the learned counsel.;