M. R. Sharma, J. - (1.) The respondent filed an application for ejectment of the petitioner on Dec. 4, 1975, on the ground that he etas in arrears of rent with effect from Feb., 1975 to Nov., 1975. The petitioner did not appear in spite of service and ex part a proceedings were ordered against him. His application for restoration of the case was also dismissed and the final order of ejectment was passed against him on Jan. 7, 1978. He went up in appeal before the learns Appellate Authority. During the hearing of the appeal, the respondent made a statement that if the petitioner tendered rent falling due with effect from Dec. 1, 1915 to May 31, 1978, she would have no objection to the evidence being adduced in support of the petitioner having made the payment of rent from Feb. 1, 1975 to Nov. 30, 1975.
(2.) The petitioner contested the plea raised in the petition that the rent for Feb., 1975 to Nov., 1975, remained unpaid. He set up a case that he had paid this rent and obtained receipts from the respondent. The learned lower appellate court made the following observations about this plea raised by the petitioner : "Shri K.S. Puri, Document Expert '(R.W. 1) has stated that the signatures marked A and B on receipts Exs. A.W. 1/1 and A.W. 1/2 had been removed from any other documents and the parts of the stamps affixed on these receipts. He has further stated that the portions which had remained on the original documents had been added and the letters on the stamps also retouched to match them with the added portion. He goes on to say that the added portion is not by the person who wrote the rest of the signatures. Having gone through the statements of Shri Gian Parkash Sharma, Document Expert (A.W.1) and Shri K. S. Puri, Document Expert R.W.I am inclined to think that the opinion of Shri K.S. Puri R.W. 1 appears to be correct,"
(3.) In this petition it has teen submitted by Mr. Kapoor that originally the landlord claimed arrears of rent for ten months only and since before the learned Appellate Authority the petitioner had paid rent for 22 years that payment should have been treated as the rent for ten months due on the date of the application to have been properly tendered. The learned counsel argues that if this tender is deemed to have been made on the first date of hearing the very basis of the order of ejectment goes.;