J.V.GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition against whom eviction order has been passed by both the authorities blow.
(2.) THE landlady Shrimati Pushpa Batra sought the ejectment of her tenant Gurdev Singh from the shop, in dispute, on the sole ground that the tenant had failed to pay the arrears of rent with effect from February 1, 1983 till the filing of the ejectment application on October 3, 1983. The shop was stated to be on a monthly rent of Rs. 350/-. She also pleaded that the house-tax of Rs. 567/- for the year 1982-83 had also not been paid. The stand taken by the tenant was that he had been paying the rent till June, 1983, to Suman Batra the daughter of the landlady who was living with her. He was not liable to pay the house-tax, as claimed. He further pleaded that the landlady could not claim the rent since February 1, 1983 because it had been paid to her daughter Suman Batra and that she was liable for prosecution. It was also pleaded that there was no agreement between the parties regarding the payment of house-tax. However, the learned Rent Controller found that the house-tax was not a part of the rent as claimed by the landlady. It was further held that the rent from January, 1983 to June, 1983, even if assumed to have been paid to Suman Batra, the same was not valid as there was no authorisation to her to receive the rent. Thus, according to the Rent Controller, there being non-payment of the arrears of rent, the eviction order was passed on August 31, 1985. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the order on August 23, 1986. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the authorities below have found that even if it be assumed that the receipts, Exhibits R. 1 to R. 4 were issued by Suman Batra and she received the rent thereunder still that payment did not discharge the liability of the tenant towards the landlady. The finding that she was not entitled to receive the rent was wholly wrong, illegal and misconceived. Once it is proved that Suman Batra received the rent for the disputed period, the rent will be deemed to have been duly paid as she had been receiving the rent earlier also. Moreover, argued the learned counsel, in the replication filed on behalf of the landlady, it was never denied that Suman Batra was not authorised or entitled to receive the rent on her behalf. In the absence of such a plea, it could not be held that the payment of rent to Suman Batra was not valid.
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the relevant record of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the whole approach of the authorities below was wrong, illegal and misconceived.;