- (1.) Ranjit Singh landlord has filed this petition under Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the judgment of the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, dated September 1, 1973 by which his petition for ejectment of Anoop Singh, respondent, was dismissed.
(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that the respondent was a tenant under the petitioner on payment of Rs. 15 per mensem as rent. An application for ejectment was filed by the petitioner against him on July 17, 1965, inter alia, on the ground that he had not paid the rent from September 1, 1962 to July 17, 1965. The application was contested by the respondent. He paid an amount of Rs. 540 on September 27, 1965, the first date of the hearing, which was accepted by the petitioner under protest. In addition the costs assessed by the court were also paid by him. The Rent Controller held that an amount of Rs. 495 was due from the respondent on accounts of rent from September 1, 1962 to May 1, 1965, and Rs. 44.43 paise on account of interest. He thus came to the conclusion that the amount tendered was more then the amount due to the petitioner. Consequently he dismissed the petition. The petitioner went up in appeal before the Appellate Authority who affirmed the judgment of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. He has come up in revision against the judgment of the Appellate Authority to this court.
(3.) The only question that requires determination is, what was the amount due to the petitioner from the respondent on September 27, 1965, the first date of hearing. It is admitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner was entitled to the rent of 33 months amounting to Rs. 495, that is, from September 1, 1962 to May 31, 1965, on the date when he filed application for ejectment. The controversy between the parties is regarding calculation of interest. The learned counsel for the petitioner has worked out an amount of Rs. 39.60 as interest from November 30, 1962 to June 30, 1965, and an amount of Rs. 7.18 from July 1, 1965 to September 27, 1965. Mr Mangat, learned counsel for the respondent has fairly conceded that the amount of interest upto June 30, 1965, has been worked out correctly, by the counsel for the petitioner. He however, disputes correctness of the interest worked out by the counsel for 2 months and 27 days, i.e., from July 1, 1965 to September 27, 1965.;