V.K.JHANJI,J - (1.) THE ejectment of the tenant (petitioner herein) was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent. In the ejectment application, it was claimed that the tenant has not paid the rent for the period detailed as under :- a) For the period 1.3.1969 to 28.2.1977, the respondents paid a sum of Rs. 34,920/- to the petitioners against the total amount of arrears of Rs. 46,560/- at the rate of Rs. 485/- p.m. Thus for the period 1.3.1969 to 28.2.1977 the respondents are in arrears amounting to Rs. 11,640/. b) For the period 1.3.1977 to 29.1.1980, the respondents paid to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 23,655.71 as against arrears of Rs. 49,500/- at the rate of Rs. 1375/- p.m. thus falling into arrears to the tune of Rs. 18,844.29. c) For the period 1.3.1980 to 28.2.1981, the respondents have not paid the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 16,500/- at the rate of Rs. 1375/- per month.
(2.) THE ejectment application was contested by the tenant, who admitted that the rent was enhanced from Rs. 485/- per month to Rs. 1375/- per month with effect from the 1st of March, 1976. It was also stated that the landlords had agreed to spend Rs. 2750/- per annum on annual maintenance of the building. However, it was claimed that only a sum of Rs. 877.25 P was spent on the repairs and maintenance. The Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment application after finding that the rent was enhanced on certain conditions, but the same were not complied with by the landlords. In appeal filed by landlords, Appellate Authority set aside the order of the Rent Controller and ordered ejectment of the tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent. This order has been impugned by the tenant in the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant has contended that the rent was enhanced w.e.f. 1.3.1976, but vide Exhibit R-5, the same was subject to the following conditions :- 1. The increased rent is payable with the approval of the Govt. 2. The owner will have to incur a minimum of Rs. 2750.00 (Rupees Two thousand seven hundred and fifty only) on annual maintenance of the building per annum. 3. The deptt. should negotiate with the owner regarding rent on the basis of the market rent and the assessed rent and the demand of the owner and should pay the lesser of the two." The learned counsel thus contended that since the landlords had not complied with Condition Nos. 2 and 3, therefore, the rent would be deemed to be Rs. 485/- p.m. and not Rs. 1375/- p.m. I find no merit in this contention. In the written statement, it was specifically averred by the respondent that the rent was enhanced to Rs. 1375/- per month w.e.f. 1.3.1976. The only condition mentioned in the written statement was that the landlord were to spend Rs. 2750/- per annum on the maintenance and repairs. According to the tenant, only a sum of Rs. 877.25P was spent on the repairs etc. Even if this amount is taken into consideration, then also the tenant would be in arrears of rent. This position has not been denied by the counsel for the petitioner. In this view of the matter, I find that the Appellate Authority rightly ordered ejectment of the petitioner-tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent, and, therefore, this finding calls for no interference by this Court.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY , the revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the tenant is allowed two months' time to vacate the premises, provided he pays/deposits the entire arrears of rent within one month from today, and also files an undertaking before the Rent Controller to the effect that he shall hand over the vacant possession of the premises on the expiry of aforesaid period. Petition dismissed.;