Judgment:
Ashok Bhan, J.
1. Present revision petition has been filed by the tenant. Facts shortly stated are that property bearing Municipal No. 506/1 (shop situated at Panipat) is owned by Bhagwan Dass landlord-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the landlord). The same was let out by him to Krishan Chand respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the tenant). Faquir Chand, the other petitioner is the father of Krishan Chand.
2. Landlord filed ejectment petition on the plea that it had let out the premises to the tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 400/- per month and the tenant hadfailed to pay the arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.9.1981 to 30.4.1984. Tenant had impaired the value and utility of the demise shop, that Krishan Chand-petitioner had sub let the demise premises to his father Faquir Chand, petitioner without the permission of the landlord.
3. In the written statement filed, allegations of impairment value and utility of the shop of sub-letting was denied. It was averred that rent had already been paid for the period from 1.9.1983 to 30:6.1984. Arrears for the period from 1.9.1981 to 30.8.1983 were tendered in Court alongwith interest at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month as the case of the tenant was that rent was Rs. 200/- per month and not Rs. 400/ per month as claimed by the landlord. Replication was filed. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-
1. What is rate of rent? OPP
2. Whether respondents are liable to be evicted from the premises in dispute on the grounds mentioned in the petition? OPA
3. Whether present petition is a counter blast to suit for permanent injunction filed by Faquir Chand respondent. If so, to what effect? OPR.
4. Whether petition is malafide? OPR
5. Whether petition has not been filed according to rules and particulars. If so, to what effect? OPR.
6.ReIief.
4. Rent Controller ordered the ejectment of the tenant on all the three counts. It was held that tenant had sub-let the premises; hehad impaired the value and utility of the building and further that the rate of rent was Rs. 400/- per month and the tenant had failed to deposit the arrears of rent.
5. Tenant being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. Appellate Authority reversed the findings of the Rent Controller on three counts. It held that there was no impairment value and utility of the buildings, that Krishan Chand had not sub-let the premises in dispute to Faquir Chand and that the rent was Rs. 200/- per month and not Rs. 400/- per month as claimed by the landlord. These three findings have not been challenged before me. Appellate Authority maintained the order of ejectment on the ground that the tenant had failed to tender the arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.9.1981 to 31.8.1983 as he had failed to produce any receipt to evidence the payment of rent by him to the landlord. Tenant being aggrieved has filed the present revision petition.
6. I have heard the counsel for the parties at length. It has already come in the earlier part of the judgment that findings recorded by the Appellate Authority regarding sub-letting, impairment value and utility of the building and the rate of rent have not been challenged before me. Landlord did not speak the truth with regard to the rate of rent, creation of sub-tenancy and impairment value and utility of the building. In these circumstances, appellate authority was not justified in believing the version of the landlord against the tenant. No doubt the initial burden was on the tenant to prove whether it had paid all the arrears of rent. He has categorically stated in his written statement that he had paid all the arrears of rent except for the period from 1.9.1983 to 30.6.1984, the rent for which was tendered by him in Court. Normally speaking, landlord would not sit quiet for a period of three years if the rent had not been paid to him for the said period. The landlord in the present case who had been disbelieved with regard to the rate of rent could not be believed for the period for which the rent had fallen due in the absence of any corroborative evidence.
7. Learned counsel for the landlord argued that the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority was a finding of fact which could not be interfered in revision. I do not find any substance in this submission. The findings recorded by the Appellate Authority in the circumstances of the present case could not be maintained as it has failed to keep in view long period for which the arrears bad not been claimed and the falsity of the claim of the landlord regarding the rate of rent. Landlord did not come to the Court with clean hands and was found false on material fact. It was held in Mehar Singh and Anr. v. Tilak Raj Girdhar, (1982) 84 P.L.R. 13 as under:-
'If once it is held by the Court that the landlord is not coming with clean hands and has taken false pleas, no order of ejectment can be passed in his favour much less a new case can be made out for him, as has been done by the Appellate Authority in the present case.
No receipt was ever issued by the landlord to the tenants on account of rent received by him, as has been admitted by him in his statement, while appearing as A.W. 2. Under these circumstances, the tenants claim that the rent had been paid by them up to July 31,1977, at the rate of Rs. 60/- per month had to be accepted particularly when no such claim was made since 1968 till he filed the eviction application. Ordinarily, no landlord will wait for such a long time in case the tenant was in arrears of rent for such a long period. All these circumstances go to prove that the claims set up by the tenants were proved and the landlord had intentionally taken false please.'
This judgment was followed in 1983 HRR 264 and it was held as under:-
'The plaintiff/landlord making false statement before the Rent Controller' on several material points concerning the grounds of eviction-Statement of the landlord regarding the period for which arrears of rent are due, is also to be disbelieved.'
I am in respectful agreement with the observations made in these two judgments.
8. For the reasons recorded above, this revision petition is accepted. Order passed by the Courts below is set aside and the ejectment petition filed by the landlord is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.