SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. - (1.) THE tenant has filed this revision petition against the order dated 24.9.1991 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar (exercising the power of Appellate Authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949), whereby the order of the Rent Controller dated 4.4.1989 determining the monthly rent of the demised premises as Rs. 30/-, has been set aside while holding that the monthly rent of the demised premises is Rs. 200/-.
(2.) IN this case, the respondent landlord filed the ejectment application against the petitioner tenant from the demised premises (shop) under Section 13(2)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground of non-payment of rent from 1.7.1985 to 30.6.1986. He claimed the rent at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month. On the first date of hearing, the petitioner tendered the rent for the claimed period at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month along with interest and cost, as assessed by the Rent Controller. However, he contested the petition on the plea that the rate of rent of the demised premises is Rs. 30/- per month. The Rent Controller after taking into consideration the evidence led by the petitioner, particularly the Agreement (Ex. R1), receipts (Ex. RW4/A and Ex. RW4B) and the expert report (Ex. RW1/1), held that the monthly rent of the demised premises was Rs. 30/- per month as claimed by the petitioner, and consequently dismissed the ejectment application. The Rent Controller did not give much weightage to the evidence led by the respondent landlord, particularly the earlier ejectment applications, i.e. Ex.A1 and Ex.A4 filed by the respondent in the years 1976 and 1984 in which the tenant tendered the rent at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month and subsequently permitted the landlord to withdraw those applications without any protest and contest.
(3.) FEELING aggrieved against the order of the Rent Controller, the respondent landlord filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority while taking into consideration the earlier two applications Ex.A1 and Ex.A4 filed by the respondent landlord on the ground of non-payment of rent, held that the monthly rate of rent of the demised premises was Rs. 200/-. The application Ex.A1 was filed in the year 1976 wherein the landlord claimed the rent at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month from February, 1976, and the same was tendered by the tenant on the first date of hearing. The said application was got withdrawn by the landlord without any protest and contest. Similarly application Ex.A4 was filed in the year 1976 claiming rent from 1.3.1984 to 30.6.1985 at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month. Again the petitioner tendered the claimed rent on the first date of hearing and permitted the landlord to withdraw the said application without any protest and contest. The Appellate Authority has also taken into consideration that after tendering the rent in the year 1976 and in the year 1985, the petitioner tenant did not file any application under Section 8 of the Act for recovery of the excess amount of rent which he could have filed within six months of the date of making the tender. The Appellate Authority also did not agree with the findings recorded by the Rent Controller on the Agreement (Ex, R1) and receipts (Ex. RW4/A and Ex.RW4/B) and held that those documents are forged and fabricated. In this regard, the finding recorded by the Rent Controller was reversed by the Appellate Authority while observing as under : ".......The respondent produced Ext. R1 agreement which is on a stamp paper and he also examined RW1 Arvind Sood, RW2 Harbhajan Singh, RW3 Arjan Singh, RW4 Rachhpal Singh and the respondent appeared as RW5. According to the statement of the respondent he took the shop consisting of two rooms in the month of May, 1964 @ Rs. 30/- per month. Thereafter, the petitioner requested him to give one room out of those two rooms and then he delivered possession of one room in November, 1965 but the rent of the remaining room remained Rs. 30/- per month and a writing was also effected. He further deposed that Kartar Singh has issued to him receipts and those receipts are Ext. RW4/A and RW/B. According to the statement of Harbhajan Singh, Kartar Singh executed agreement and he signed the same after admitting its contents to be correct. In his cross-examination he stated that he got his motor repaired from Darshan Singh, respondent. Similar is the statement of Arjan Singh, RW3. He also admitted that he had filed a suit against the Kartar Singh for recovery of some amount and that suit was dismissed. Both the witnesses i.e. Arjan Singh and Harbhajan Singh are interested witnesses. The agreement Ex. R1 clearly shows that it is a fabricated documents. According to the case of the appellant he had given this stamp paper for obtaining the electric connection in the year 1965. The respondent who is an electric contractor got the same removed from the department and converted it into an agreement of rent. He examined AW2 Kishan Chand, Revenue Accountant, Punjab State Electricity Board, Goraya. He had clearly stated that Kartar Singh applied for an electric connection. Pages 1, 2 and 25 of the electric connection filed are missing from the file. There is no stamp paper in the said file. There was a requirement of the stamp paper. When the stamp paper is taken then it is written on the same "agreement attached herewith". On the stamp paper of Ext. R1 pages 1 and 2 are marked in the same pen and ink in which the remaining file of the electricity is there. So, I am of the opinion that the stamp paper Ext.R1 was removed from the electric connection file of the appellant and was converted into an agreement of rent by the respondent. The witnesses Arjan Singh and Harbhajan Singh are interested. So no reliance can be placed on their statements. Similar is the position of receipts Ext. RW4/A and Ext. RW4/B. These receipts are dated 5.6.1964 and 9.7.1964. These receipts are written on the back of account book in which the accounts of 1965 are entered. I am of the considered opinion that receipt Ext. RW4/A and RW4/B are forged documents and have been prepared by the respondents after tendering the amounts in the previous applications, otherwise he would have mentioned these receipts and Ext. R1 in his written statement Ext. R2." ;