- (1.) This petition under Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 has been filed by the tenant against the order of the appellate Authority dated May 27, 1980 reversing that of the Rent Controller. Her ejectment has been ordered on the ground of non-payment of rent. The allegation made in this respect by the landlord was that the ground floor of the premises in dispute consisting of one room, court-yard and the passage was let out to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month in the month of February, 1971. The first floor consisting of a room, verandah and the courtyard was let out to her at the same rate in December 1972. The arrears of rent were claimed from January 1, 1973 at the side rate. The tenant, on appearance, disputed the rate of the rent and pleaded that the rent for each of the premises at the ground floor and the first floor was Rs. 10/- per month. She accordingly tendered arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 20/- per month. The trial Court accepted the version of the defence and dismissed the petition. However, on appeal, the appellate authority reversed its finding and ordered ejectment of the tenant.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the correctness of the finding of the appellate Court on the ground that the entries from the municipal assessment register of house tax could not form the basis for the inference that the monthly rent of the premises in dispute was Rs. 80/- per month. For this contention he has relied on the following observations of A.D. Koshal, J. (as he then was in Jagan Nath v. Smt. Shanti Devi, 1976 RCR(Rent) 341) :- "The contents of the assessment register (Exhibit P.1) maintained by the Municipal Committee, Jullundur for the period 1965 to 1970 deserve careful scrutiny. The relevant column is 5 which is headed 'Name of the person in possession with his parentage, caste and place of residence, if he is a person different from the owner'. In this column appears the following entry :- '1' Jagan Nath 40/2 plus K '2 Avtar Singh 30-2R plus Shed 70/- --" The learned Appellate Authority read this entry as meaning that Jagan Nath respondent was occupying 2 rooms and a kitchen as a tenant at Rs. 40/- per month while Avtar Singh Rs. 30/- per month and that the total rent payable to the petitioner (who is of course shown to be the owner of the premises being House No. WD 156) was Rs. 70/- per month. I am afraid this conclusion cannot be drawn from the entry. The official who prepared it had to mention the name and the description of the person in possession and it was no part of his duty to specify the capacity of the occupant or the condition on which he held the premises. The figures "40" and "30" are, therefore, not capable of interpretation that they represented the rates of monthly rent respectively payable by the occupants in question. On the other hand, the figures may well have represented the estimated annual letting value of various portions and such value may or may not have any relation to the rent payable if at all any such rent was being paid. From the entry in the assessment register, therefore, it cannot be concluded that any relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties (although it can certainly be made out that the petitioner was the owner of house No. WE 156 while the respondent was occupying a portion of it). The finding arrived at by the learned Appellate Authority to the contrary is reversed." From a close reading of the said observations it is evident that in the entries in dispute there, it was not shown in what capacity Jagan Nath and Avtar Singh were in possession and what was denoted by the figures "40" and "30". On the other hand, in the present case the landlord has examined Seeta Ram A.W. 1 who had made the entries in the assessment register. He deposed that he had gone at the spot to make enquiries and it was on the representation of the person in occupation that the entries were made in the assessment register. The entries for the year 1972-73 show that Dewa Singh, husband of the petitioner and one Karnail Singh were in possession each at the monthly rent of Rs. 40/-. In the year 1973-74 the same entry was repeated but in the register relating to the years 1974-75 and 1975-76 Bakhtawar Singh son of the petitioner is shown to be in possession of the property in dispute on a monthly rent of Rs. 80/-. The ratio in Jagan Nath's case , therefore, has no bearing on the present case.
(3.) It was next contended that the persons in occupation in the assessment register are shown to be the husband of the petitioner and a stranger in the year 1972-73 and for the latter two years son of the petitioner. This being factually incorrect the entries were obviously false. I am unable to subscribe to this view. Ought we know the petitioner may have made representation that her husband or the son were the tenants for some ulterior motive such as the getting of rent from their employers. Otherwise also the mentioning of the name of the husband or the son of the petitioner as tenant would not be of much consequence, they being members of the same family. Moreover, so far as the rate of rent is concerned there is hardly any suspicious circumstance or doubt surrounding the entries and the rate of rent has been consistently shown in all the years as Rs. 80/- for both the portions. That apart, the finding of the Appellate Authority is not based on the said entries alone. It has also accepted and relied upon the ocular statement of three witnesses to arrive at its finding. Reliance on the ocular statement was challenged on the ground that none of them was a witness to the creation of the tenancy nor had deposed that the rent was ever paid in their presence. No doubt the demised premises were not leased out in the presence of either of them but all the witnesses stated that the rent had been paid at the rate of Rs. 80/- per month in their presence. The probabilities of the case also are heavily against the petitioner. It is difficult to believe that the accommodation consisting of one room, courtyard and passage on the ground floor and one room, verandah and courtyard at the first floor could be let out for a paltry sum of Rs. 20/- in the year 1971 situate at Jagraon, one of the most flourishing and thickly populated sub-divisional of district Ludhiana. No ground, therefore, has been made out to interfere with the findings of the fact recorded by the Appellate Authority in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court and this petition is accordingly dismissed. The tenant is, however, allowed three months' time to vacate the premises in dispute provided she deposits the rent for this period in advance by the end of this month with the Rent Controller. No costs.;