H.S.BEDI,J - (1.) THE only dispute in the present petition is with regard to the fact whether the tender made by the tenant before the Rent Controller was in order or not.
(2.) THE respondent who is the tenant, took the shop on monthly rent of Rs. 200/- The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application for eviction of the respondent on the ground that the rent from March 1, 1978 to August 31, 1978, amounting to Rs. 1,200/- had been withheld by the respondent. The respondent appeared before the Rent Controller and tendered a sum of Rs. 600/- as rent from July 1, 1978 to September 30, 1978 and further explained the discrepancy in the short tender by claiming that he had already paid a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to the petitioner and the same had been recorded in receipt Ex. RX dated January 20, 1978. The contesting parties also adduced evidence including the evidence of the handwriting experts with regard to the validity of the receipt Ex. RX and after considering the entire evidence, the Rent Controller found that the said receipt could be relied upon and the sum of Rs. 1,000/- having already been paid, there was no short tender made by the respondent. The eviction application was, accordingly, dismissed. On appeal taken to the Appellate Authority, the order of the Rent Controller, was affirmed on the only point agitated i.e. with regard to the validity of the tender. Aggrieved by the order of the Courts below, the present petition has been filed. The only argument of Mr. P.K. Palli, Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner is that from the sequence of events, it would be clear that the receipt Ex. RX was in fact never executed. He has stated that the rent note Ex. A1 was executed between the parties on January 26, 1978, wherein it was recorded that the rent would be paid at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month. He has also urged that admittedly, the rent upto the end of February, 1978 had been paid on March 1, 1978 and this fact had been recorded on the back side of the rent note Ex. A-1. He also urged that in this situation, the question of the execution of the receipt Ex. RX for the sum of Rs. 1,000/- stated to have been taken in advance on January 28, 1978, would not have arisen.
(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel of this aspect as well and find no reason to differ with the orders of the Courts below. This argument had been considered by the Rent Controller, who had discussed the evidence and had given his independent findings. Moreover, it appears that a sum of Rs. 1,000/- which has been mentioned in the receipt Ex. RX was given by the tenant on account of the repairs that were to be made in the shop, and in this situation, the various dates mentioned by the learned counsel in order to cast a doubt on the veracity of Ex. RX are of no consequence. Moreover, the present petition was filed way back in 1980 and it would be improper to interfere with the findings of fact at this belated stage.;