J.V.GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS is tenant's petition against whom eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below.
(2.) THE premises in dispute which consists of one room was rented out to the tenant Sampuran Singh in August, 1981 on a monthly rent of Rs. 150/-. According to the landlady the tenant only paid rent for one month and did not pay the rent subsequently. Thus, she filed the present ejectment application on 2.2.1983. On the grounds that her tenant was in arrears of rent from 1.9.1981 and that the building in dispute was unfit and unsafe for human habitation and that she required the same for her own occupation. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant the plea taken was that the rent was Rs. 50/- only and not Rs. 150/- p.m. as claimed by the landlady. According to him, he had paid the rent @ Rs. 50/- P.M. upto 31.1.1983 and was thus not in arrears as claimed. However, rent for 3 months was tendered by him on the first date of hearing. The other for pleas were also controverted. The learned Rent Controller found that the landlady bonafidely needs the demised premises for her own occupation. He further found that she was not occupying any other residential building in the urban area concerned. The rent was held to be Rs. 150/- per month and it was further held that the tenant was in arrears of rent from 1.9.1981 and thus the tender was invalid. However, the plea that the building in dispute was unfit and unsafe for human habitation was negatived. was negatived. In view of the earlier findings, eviction order was passed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the finding of Rent Controller on the question of bonafide requirements. As regards the rate of rent, the finding given by the appellate authority was that it was Rs. 50/- per month and not Rs. 150/- as held by the Rent Controller. However, the eviction order was maintained on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent from 1.9.1981 and therefore, the tender on the first date of hearing was invalid. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has filed this petition in this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the written statement it was pleaded that no receipt was being issued and in the replication filed on behalf of the landlady, this assertion as such was never denied. Thus argued the learned counsel, he could only produce oral evidence to show that the payment was made. Since the landlady herself did not come into the witness box to deny that she did not receive the rent, it could not be held that the rent was not paid as found by the authorities below. According to the learned counsel, the finding of the Courts below in this behalf was, therefore, illegal, and improper. He also pointed out that vide order dated 8.11.1983 of the Rent Controller, it was undertaken that the landlady will be produced on the next date of hearing. But in spite of that, she was never produced in Court. Thus argued the learned counsel all the conduct on the part of the landlady shows that shows that she was not prepared to deny the payment of rent to her. According to the learned counsel appearance of the attorney for the landlady was of no consequence as the facts were not in his knowledge. In support of this contention reference ws made to Sansar Chand v. Nanak Chand 1982(1) RCR 207 and Vijay Kumar v. Munni Lal Jain and others, 1986(1) RCR 156. Reference was also made to Karam Singh v. Balwant Singh, 1984 RL (Reports) 140 to contended that a finding should have been recorded in regard to the exact amount which the tenant had defaulted in payment account of arrears of rent. Since no such finding was given by the authorities below, the case should be remanded.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-landlady submitted that even if it be presumed that there was no rebuttal to the evidence produced by the tenant, even then the tenant could not succeed because the authorities below have not believed his oral evidence. It being a concurrent finding of fact based on appreciation of oral evidence this Court should not interfere in revision a jurisdiction. Moreover, according to the learned counsel the question of issuing of any receipt as such did not arise because the tenant did not pay any rent after the premises were let out to him except for one month. Thus his plea that no receipt was issued to him was of no consequence. He also challenged the findings of the authorities below on the question of her bonafide requirement and that the building has become unfit and unsafe for the human habitation.;