SURYA KANT, J. - (1.)THIS Revision Petition is directed at the instance of the tenant who has been ordered to be evicted by the Rent Controller, Patiala vide his order dated 27.10.2005 from the premises comprising one room which is part of House No. 702/3 situated at Topkhana Gate, Patiala and whose appeal against the eviction order has also been dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide the judgment under challenge dated 8.12.2007.
(2.)THE respondent - landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short 'the Act'] against the petitioner - tenant alleging, inter-alia, that the demised premises was rented out to him @ Rs. 900/- per month in June, 1993. She alleged that after paying the rent up to August, 1993, the petitioner - tenant stopped paying rent; with the intervention of various persons, the tenant paid rent for November, 2000 on 6.11.2000 and assured that he will arrange for the arrears from September, 1993 but later on refused to pay the same. A complaint was also made to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala but no action was taken by the police; that the roof of the premises is in a dilapidated condition and can fall at any time. She accordingly sought the petitioner's eviction on the grounds of [i] nonpayment of arrears of rent and [ii] that the demised premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.
Upon notice, the petitioner - tenant appeared and tendered arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.12.2000 to 31.5.2001 @ Rs. 900/- per month along with costs and interest. That tender was accepted by the landlady under protest alleging it to be short. The petitioner tenant, though admitted the rate of rent in June, 1993 @ Rs. 900/- per month. He claimed that the rent has been paid regularly in advance, but he stopped paying the same from December, 2000 because on 6.11.2000 when he was away and the persons employed by him were making necessary repairs in the premises, the respondent-landlady along with three women and two men came to the premises and stopped the repair works. The petitioner-tenant, therefore, allegedly refused to pay the rent unless repairs were carried out.

(3.)THE petitioner - tenant did admit that some persons, namely, Inderjit Dhiman, Rajinder Kumar Bawa and Rakesh Kumar etc. were there in the premises on 6.11.2000 but for an altogether different purpose, namely, for the repair work. He also claimed that the respondent-landlady got him pressurized on 12.11.2000 and obtained a writing, later on relied upon by her as Ex.P1.