RAJINDER KUMAR JOSHI Vs. VEENARANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant appeal against the order of the High Court rejecting his writ petition summarily wherein he had challenged the order passed by the authorities under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") evicting him from the suit premises. The relevant facts are that the respondent landlady had filed an application before the Rent Controller seeking eviction of the appellant, among other things, under S. 13(2)(i) of the Act since he was in arrears of rent from February 1, 1978 to May 4, 1982. The landlady had also sought his eviction on two other grounds, viz., she wanted the suit premises for her personal occupation and that the tenant was a nuisance to the neighbouring occupants. Since the two latter grounds were negatived and ultimately the decree was passed by the Rent Controller and was confirmed by the Appellate Authority only on the ground of the arrears of rent, we are not concerned here with the said grounds.

(2.) The facts relating to the arrears of rent as found by the authorities are that the respondent-landlady's husband, Jagmohan Lal had on her behalf rented out the premises to the appellant at the monthly rent of Rs. 200/-. Jagmohan Lal died in 1978. According to the landlady the appellant did not pay the rent to her since February 1, 1978 till the date of her application for ejectment. The appellant's defence to the application was that he had taken the premises on rent from Jagmohan Lal. He denied that Jagmohan Lal had acted on behalf of the respondent - landlady. In short, he refused to recognise the respondent as his landlady. He also contended that the rent was Rs. 150/ - per month and that he was in arrears of rent only for one month, viz., from May 1, 1982 to May 31, 1982 and that he had tendered the said rent in the Court on the date of the first hearing before the Rent Controller.

(3.) The Rent Controller found that the rent of the premises was Rs. 150/ - per month and not Rs. 200/- as contended by the landlady. But he also found that the appellant:was in arrears of rent from February 1, 1978 and not, as contended by him, for only one month, viz., May, 1982. This finding was confirmed by the Appellate Authority.