Sondha Rani Vs. Kalu Ram - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- vinod k. sharma, j.1. the tenant petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.9.2005 passed by the learned rent controller and order dated 15.11.2007 passed by the learned appellate authority ordering the eviction of the petitioner from the premises in dispute on account of non-payment of rent.2. the eviction of the petitioner was sought by the respondent-landlord on the ground of non-payment of rent. it was claimed by the respondent-landlord that the rate of rent rs. 500/- per month which the tenant has failed to tender. the learned rent controller assessed the rent payable @ rs. 500/- per month and opportunity was also given to the petitioner to tender the rent, however, petitioner chose not to tender the rent as determined by the learned rent controller and preferred an appeal before the learned appellate authority.3. the learned appellate authority came to the conclusion that the rate of rent is rs. 300/- and not rs. 500/- per month and that the tenant was in arrears since 21.11.1996. he was directed to pay rent along with interest and costs within one month from the date of order i.e. 15.11.2007.4. the petitioner chose not to make the payment and filed this revision petition claiming that the rate of rent was rs. 130/- per month. in order to arrive at the conclusion that the rate of rent was rs. 300/- per month the learned appellate authority recorded the following findings:8. a very short point involved in this appeal was whether the rate of rent was rs. 130/-, rs. 300/- or rs. 500/- per month. although the main stress of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant-tenant was that it has been proved on record that the rate of rent of demised premises was rs. 130/- per month and has also got proved rent receipts ex.rwl/b to ex.rwl/f from 24.11.1984 to july 1993 by examining rw-1 bhola shankar, attorney of appellant-tenant sandha rani to prove that the rate of rent was settled at the rate of rs. 130/- per month and that the property was taken on rent from smt. sharda sood who is the author of these receipts. although this rw-1 bhola shanker has stated on solemn affirmation through his affidavit ex.rx that the husband of the appellant-tenant had taken one room, kitchen and store on rent has been produced on record to prove this fact. but the case of the respondent-landlord was that the rate of rent was settled between husband of the appellant-respondent-tenant and the respondent-applicant-respondent-landlord at the rate of rs. 300/- per month for one room and one kitchen on 21.11.1993 when a room and a kitchen was rented out to the husband of the appellant-tenant. the respondent landlord has further taken up the plea in the ejectment application, that after one month of the said tenancy one store was further taken on rent by the husband of the appellant-tenant and rate of that was fixed at rs. 200/- per month. thus the total rent of the property comes to rs. 500/- per month and the appellant-tenant has paid the rant only till 21.11.1996 and thereafter neither the husband of the appellant-tenant nor the appellant paid any rent and this fact was tried to be proved by the respondent landlord while himself appearing as aw-3 and examining aw-1 om veer singh. but incidentally in this case the respondent-landlord has also produced on record photocopy of receipt mark-a. this receipt is very important. although the rent controller ignored this receipt for the reasons best known to him and not even a about this photocopy of receipt mark a was recorded in the impugned order yet this photocopy of receipt mark a is very important in determining the rate of rent. firstly, so far as this photocopy of receipt mark a is concerned, it has to be read into evidence because this photocopy of receipt mark a was produced by none else by the respondent-landlord kalu ram himself and this photocopy of the receipt mark a is for the rent from 21.11.1993 to 21.11.1996 and according to this photocopy of receipt mark a, the rate of was settled at rs. 300/- per month. this photocopy of receipt mark a in fact falsified the version of the respondent-landlord that the rate of rent was rs. 500/- per month because in the pleadings it has been specifically pleaded by the respondent-landlord that initially the rate of rent was settled rs. 300/- per month for one room and one kitchen on 21.9.1993 and thereafter within one month of the tenancy i.e. 21.10.1993 one store was also rented out to the husband of the appellant and for that additional rent @ rs. 200/- per month was settled and so from 21.10.1993 onwards the rate of tenancy was rs. 500/- per month and that the appellant-tenant had paid the rent till 21.11.1996 which fact stands falsified from this photocopy of receipt mark-a in which it has been so recorded that the respondent-landlord has received rent from 21.9.1993 to 21.11.1996 i.e. the cut out date the respondent-landlord has received rent at the rate of rs. 300/- per month and nothing is due towards the appellant-tenant and this photocopy of receipt mark a which has been ignored by the rent controller is a clincher to this fact that the tenancy was neither for rs. 130/- as pleaded by the appellant-tenant nor rs. 500/- as pleaded by the respondent-landlord and it is only rs. 300/- per month.5. mr. arvind kashyap, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has challenged the findings recorded by the learned appellate authority on the plea that the learned appellate authority has assessed the rent @ rs. 300/- per month on the basis of photo copy of receipt, which was marked as 'a' and, thus, was not admissible in evidence.6. it is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned rent controller as well as the learned appellate authority have failed to notice that receipts showing the rate of rent to be rs. 130/- per month were exhibited by the petitioner on record and, thus, the finding of the learned courts below deserves to be set aside.7. the learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that the onus to prove the rate of rent was oh the landlord. in support of this contention reliance was placed on the judgment of this court in the case of swantantar kumar v. kamal dev bawa and ors. (1988) 93 p.l.r. 379. this plea of the petitioner cannot be accepted as the learned rent controller as well as the appellate authority have recorded the finding with regard to the rate of rent on appreciation of evidence produced on record by the landlord. the learned appellate authority has recorded a finding that rate of rent was rs. 300/- per month on the basis of document mark 'a', which has also been used to hold that the rate of rent was not rs. 500/- per month as claimed by the landlord.8. the finding of the rate of rent has been recorded on the basis of evidence produced by the landlord and, thus, it cannot be said that there was no evidence in support of the finding recorded by the learned rent controller and appellate authority. the rent receipt relied upon by the petitioner was not issued by the landlord but by alleged power of attorney of the previous landlord, however, no power of attorney was placed on record to prove this fact. the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, cannot be accepted.9. the learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgments of this court in the cases of santosh kumar v. bhagwant parshad 1994 (2) r.c.r. (rent) 19 (p&h) and manohar lal v. lachhman singh (1984) (1) r.c.r. (rent) 572 (p&h;) to contend that once the landlord was disbelieved on the rate of rent the other ground on which eviction is sought is also weakened and it has to be held that the landlord has not come to court with clean hands.10. the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are also not applicable to the facts of the present case. the eviction of the petitioner has not been ordered on any other ground but on the ground of non-payment of rent.11. admittedly, the petitioner has failed to pay the rent assessed or rent claimed by him to be due within the stipulated period. it was always open to the petitioner to have paid the rent under protest, however, he chose not to pay the rent to the landlord, though, assessed by the learned rent controller as well as the learned appellate authority.12. the findings recorded by the learned appellate authority with regard to the rate of rent referred to above, cannot be said to be perverse or not based on evidence brought on record so as to call for interference by this court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. no mertit. dismissed.