- (1.) Om Parkash had let out his house sometime in the past to Deep Chand on monthly rent of Rs. 5/- excluding water tax and house tax. On March 17, 1971, Om Parkash moved an application under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 , as applied to the State of Havana, for eviction of Deep Chand on two grounds, firstly, that he bona fide required the house for his personal necessity and secondly for non-payment of arrears of rent. It was alleged that he (Om Parkash) needed the house for tendering his cattle and that Deep Chand had fallen in arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 118.85 paise which he had failed to pay. The eviction application was contested by Deep Chand. He admitted the factum of tenancy as well as the rate of rent and also that he was liable to pay water tax and house tax. He controverted the other material allegations and raised various pleas.
(2.) He tendered Rs 91.40 paise as arrears of rent house tax, water tax and interest thereon on May, 1, 1971. The said amount and also Rs. 30/- which was paid as costs were accepted by Om Parkash under protest. Hence, the eviction application was tried on the following issues : (1) Whether the tender is valid ? (2) Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected on the ground mentioned In para No. 3 of the application ? (3) Whether the application is barred by principles of res judicata? (4) Whether the applicant is estopped from claiming any rent etc. prior to 1-4-1965 ? (5) Whether the notice is not legal ? (6) Whether the respondent is entitled to costs ? (7) Relief ? The Rent Controller decided issue Nos. 3, 5 and 6 against Deep Chand and he found issue No. 4 in his favour. He answered issue No. 2 against On, Parkash but finding issue No. 1 in his favour directed eviction of Deep Chand from the house. Aggrieved by the said order of the Rent Controller, Deep Chand carried appeal which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. Dissatisfied with the said result, he has come to his Court under revision.
(3.) Mr. R.L Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has assailed the finding recorded by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the Appellate Authority on issue No. 1. According to him, the tender which had been made by the petitioner on May 1, 1971, was valid. However on a probe and calculations he had to concede that even if the rent due to Om Parkash is calculated upto March 31, 1971 the amount of rent paid in all by Deep Chand to him cannot meet the rent which had actually fallen due from him. So, he concedes that the tender made by Deep Chand on May 1, 1971, was short as such, he has not been able to displace the finding recorded by the Rent Controller on issue No. 1. I too do not find any defect in the said finding. When the finding on issue No. 1 recorded by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the Appellate Authority cannot be disturbed, there can be no luck for the petitioner and this revision petition must fail.;