J.V.GUPTA,J - (1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition against whom eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below.
(2.) THE landlord Mohan Singh, filed the ejectment application against his tenants Jagdish Chander and Ishwar Chand, on May 19, 1981, on the allegations that the premises were let out in September, 1978, at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. The tenants wherein arrears of rent from November, 1978 to April, 1981. In the reply filed on behalf of the tenants, the stand taken was that the rent was Rs. 125/- per month and not Rs. 300/- per month, as alleged. The rent up to January, 1981, had already been paid. The rent up to February, 1981, was also paid to Sham Singh, the son of the landlord. However, to save himself from eviction, the tenants tendered rent from February 1, 1981 to April 30, 1981 for three months only at the rate of Rs. 12/- per month along with interest and costs, in Court. The controversy before the Rent Controller was as to whether the tenants were in arrears of rent, as alleged by the landlord and what was the rate of rent. According to the learned Rent Controller, the rent of the demised premises was Rs. 125/- per month as asserted by the tenants and not Rs. 300/-, as claimed by the landlord. As regards the payment of rent, the learned Rent Controller found that tenant had failed to establish that they had paid the arrears of rent prior to January, 1981, to the landlord and, therefore, they were in arrears of rent from November, 1978 to January, 1981. In view of these findings, the eviction order was passed on May 6, 1982. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the eviction order. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the whole approach of the authorities below was wrong and improper. Once it was found that the rent was Rs. 125/- per month, as asserted by the tenants, the landlord could not be believed that the tenants were in arrears of rent from November, 1978 to April, 1981. According to the learned counsel, in paragraph 3(a) of the written statement, it was specifically pleaded :- "The answering respondents have already paid rent up to the month of January 1981 to the petitioner and obtained a receipt in the respect to the same, that nothing was due by January 1981. The rent for the month of February 1981 was given to the petitioner through his son for which the respondent has obtained receipt and photostat copy of the same is attached. However, rent for the months of February to April along with interest and costs has been tendered in the Hon'ble Court and accepted by the petitioner". In the replication filed by the landlord, these allegations were not specifically denied. The only plea taken was that the said paragraph of the written statement was wrong and incorrect. The tender was insufficient and not legal. Thus, argued the learned counsel, in view of these pleadings and there being no specific denial, the same will be deemed to have been admitted by landlord. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Smt. Kamla Kanta v. Ajit Singh, 1981(2) RCR 437 and Abdul Hamid v. Nur Mohd., AIR 1976 Delhi 328. The learned counsel further submitted that when the tenants closed their evidence, to prove the payment of arrears of rent vide, Exhibit R. 1, no evidence was produced in rebuttal. The receipt, Exhibit R. 1, bears the signature of Sham Singh, son of the landlord. The said Sham Singh was never produced by the landlord to deny the said receipt. It was further argued that according to the statement of the landlord himself, he never issued receipt and therefore, on the facts and circumstances of the case, it could not be believed that the tenants were in arrears of the rent for a period of three years; particularly when the landlord had been found to be false on the question of the rate of rent. Reliance in this behalf was placed on Mehar Singh v. Tilak Raj, 1981(2) RCR 657.
(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the rate of rent was found to be Rs. 125/- per month in view of the entries in the house-tax register of the municipal committee. Therefore, the said finding was not challenged in appeal by the landlord. Moreover, the ejectment application was filed within three years claiming arrears of rent for the said period and, therefore, there was nothing wrong or illegal therein. According to the learned counsel, both the authorities below, on the appreciation of the entire evidence, found that the tenants were in arrears of rent and that being a finding of fact, could not be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction.;