- (1.) The tenant has come up in revision against the order of the Appellate Authority who on appeal affirmed the order of the Rent Controller ordering her ejectment from the demised premises.
(2.) The facts :- The respondent (hereinafter referred to as the landlord) filed an application for eviction of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) under S.13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the Act) as applicable to Union Territory, Chandigarh. The landlord got an insertion in the Daily Tribune dated March 29, 1987 that he wanted to lease out the first floor excluding a bed room and a bath room of his residential house No. 203 situated in S.21 Chandigarh (for short the demised premises). The tenant's husband approached the landlord and agreed to take the first floor of the demised premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 2500/-. He executed a document dated March 29, 1987 agreeing to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.2500/- per month. A receipt dated March 31, 1987, was issued by the wife of the landlord stating that she had received Rs. 1100/- from the tenant towards service charges provided in the demised premises. On the same day, the landlord executed a receipt for having received Rs. 1400/ - as rent from the tenant for the demised premises excluding a bed room and a bath room. It appears that the alleged tenancy entered into a rough weather. On April 2, 1987, the landlord sent an intimation to the Station House Officer Police Station S.15 Chandigarh that the tenant approached him introducing herself as a close relation of Smt. Bhullar wife of General Bhullar, and requested him to lease out the demised premises. He agreed to do so and received advance rent for the month of April from her. On verification from Smt. Bhullar, he found that the tenant was never referred by her. The husband of the tenant had approached him for refund of the rent and he agreed to do so provided the possession is handed over on April 15, 1987. Another document was executed on April 4, 1987 whereby the tenant undertook to vacate the premises on May 15, 1987. On May 10, 1987 the tenant wrote to the Station House Officer that she has not been able to get alternative accommodation and she be allowed to continue in the demised premises till June 20, 1987. The landlord sought eviction on the grounds on nonpayment of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 2500/- per month and that the tenant had agreed to vacate the demised premises by May 15, 1987 and her refusal necessitated initiation of eviction proceedings.
(3.) The tenant denied the allegations made in the eviction application and pleaded that she had taken the premises on rent at the rate of Rs. 1400/- per month and Rs. 1100/- were to be paid by her for service charges viz; telephone, sweeper and washerman etc.;