J.V.GUPTA,J - (1.) THIS is tenant's petition against whim eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below.
(2.) THE landlord Harbans Lal sought the ejectment of his tenant Surjit Singh from the shop in dispute on the allegations of non-payment of arrears of rent with effect from 7th August, 1972 to 30th September, 1980. According to the landlord, the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the arrears of rent with effect from 7th August, 1972 to 31st July, 1980, at the rate of Rs. 10/- per mensem and with effect from 1st August, 1980 at the rate of Rs. 30/- per mensem total amounting to Rs. 1075/-. The ejectment application was filed on 23rd September, 1982. The ejectment application was contested on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, and the landlord was debarred by his own act and conduct from filing the present application. However, the rent for the period from 1st August, 1980 to 30th September, 1980, at the rate of Rs. 30/- per mensem was tendered on the first date of hearing, but no rent was paid prior thereto at the rate of Rs. 10/- per mensem on the plea that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant for the said period. Learned Rent Controller after framing the issues and allowing the parties to lead their evidence came to the conclusion that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties prior to 1st August, 1980, and the tenant has failed to show that he had paid the rent for the period from 7th August, 1972 to 31st July, 1980 at the rate of Rs. 10 per mensem. Consequently, the ejectment order was passed. In appeal, the Appellate Authority, while maintaining the said finding of the learned Rent Controller, found that there was no cogent evidence on the record that the tenant has already paid that rent for a period from 7th August, 1972 to 31st July, 1980 to the landlord, whereas it is amply proved on the record that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties prior to Ist August, 1980. A fresh rent note was executed only for enhancement of rent from Rs. 10/- to Rs. 30/-. As a result thereof, the eviction order was maintained.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the findings arrived at by the authorities below that the rent for the said period was not paid, was wrong. The ejectment application was filed in the year 1982, claiming rent for 8 years for which there was no explanation as to why the landlord did not claim the rent earlier. According to the learned counsel, this itself shows the conduct of the landlord and, therefore, there was no question of non-payment of rent as claimed in the ejectment application. In support of his contention, reference was made to Raj Kumar v. Ram Parkash, 1981(2) RCR 619 : 1982(2) R.C.J. 248.;