N.C.JAIN,J - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the orders of the authorities below by which the application for eviction filed by the landlord has been dismissed.
(2.) THE application for eviction of the tenant was filed on several grounds, namely, non-payment of rent, charge of user, nuisance etc. However, both in the trial Court and before the appellate authority only two grounds were pressed into service. One of the grounds for eviction of the tenant was that the tenant did not pay the arrears of rent from 5.1.1973 to 19.7.1984 and, therefore, he was liable to be evicted. The tenant tendered the arrears of rent on the first date of hearing from 5.10.1973 to 4.8.1974 meaning there by that the tenant did not tender the arrears of rent which had fallen due upto 4th October, 1973. The plea of the tenant was that he tendered the arrears of rent and several receipts were issued by Smt. Maya Devi, the landlady of the demised premises. In this respect, both the authorities below have recorded the concurrent finding of fact holding that the payment of rent upto date was proved by several receipts brought on the record of the case. Mr. J.M. Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that a bare look on the receipt Exhibit R.1 would make it clear that the same is a fabricated document and that since Exhibit R.1 relates to the period from 5.7.1971 to 4.3.1973 which includes the non-payment of rent of the relevant period, the tenant is liable to be evicted, if the receipt is held to be a forgery. With the help of the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the receipt Exhibit R.1 No doubt, it is true that the receipt Exhibit R.1 has been scribed not on a single piece of paper and that two papers have been joined or in other words pasted but this circumstances alone cannot and does not in law lead to the conclusion that the receipts Exhibit R.1 is a forged document. I have perused the other rent receipts as well and there are many which are of the same type. In order to find out whether Exhibit R.1 is a forged document or not, I have gone through the statements of the landlord and the tenant coupled with the statement of attesting witness Ayudhia Parshad. The landlord has not and possibly could not say anything about the forgery of Exhibit R.1 because the same is purported to have been thumb marked by his mother. Even the tenant and the attesting witness had not been cross-examined on this point. In the absence of any cross-examination it would not be safe to hold that receipt Exhibit R.1 is a forged document. In view thereof, there is no force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that non-payment of rent is proved.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has forcefully argued that since the demised premises was given for commercial purpose, the same could not be used for the manufacturing of soap. There is no force in the submission of the learned counsel. A bare perusal of the rent-deed makes it clear that no specific purpose was specified in the rent deed and the same was given for doing business (Barai Karowar). In view thereof, the tenant was at liberty to use it for any purpose.;