Darshan Singh vs Rajesh Pal Singh

R.S. Mongia, J.

Respondent Rajesh Pal Singh had filed a petition u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent. Restriction Act (as applicable to U.T. Chandigarh) (hereinafter called the ''Act'') for ejectment of the present petitioner-tenant from house No. 3009/1, Sector 45-D, Chandigarh. The ground for ejectment was non-payment of rent since November 1, 1989. It was alleged in the petition that the house in question was let out to the tenant at the monthly rent of Rs. 550/- besides water and electricity charges. The tenancy was oral and the tenant was in arrears of rent since November 1, 1989, which he had neither paid nor tendered.

The tenant (petitioner in the present case) admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. However, it was alleged that in fact the rent was Rs. 250/- per mensem and not Rs. 550/- per mensem as claimed by the landlord. It was further alleged that the tenant had been paying the rent regularly but the landlord had refused to issue the receipts. As per the tenant, he had paid the rent upto December, 1991, and the landlord had refused to receive the rent w.e.f. January 1992. Rent for the months of January and February, 1992, at the rate of Rs. 250/- per mensem was tendered along with interest and cost in the court.

The landlord produced AW1 Vijay Kumar, who deposed that in his presence, the tenant had paid a sum of Rs. 550/- as rent to the landlord. Similarly AW2 Partap Singh also stated that he was once present when the tenant had paid rent to the landlord at the rate of Rs. 550/-. Rajesh Pal, landlord, also himself appeared as his own witness to prove that in fact rent was Rs. 550/- per mensem excluding water and electricity charges. On the other hand, tenant himself appeared as RW1 and deposed that he took the premises on rent at the monthly rent of Rs. 250/- excluding water and electricity charges. He also produced two witnesses- Sher Singh and Jar-nail Singh who deposed that Darshan Singh, tenant, had paid in their presence Rs. 250/- as rent to the landlord. The learned Rent Controller observed that the landlord who was to prove that the rent was Rs. 550/- produced oral evidence. It was further observed by the learned Rent Controller that this evidence cannot be looked into as the statement of both the witnesses are beyond pleadings as it was nowhere mentioned that such and such persons were present when rent was paid by the respondent to him and, therefore, these statements were ignored.

I am of the view that the statements of these two witnesses could not be ignored on the ground that their names did not find mention in the pleadings. The pleadings were complete when it was alleged that the rate of rent was Rs. 550/- per mensem. It is only when a tenant denies such a plea that the question of proof would come. In the replication it could be said that the rent was settled in the presence of such and such person or rent for a particular month was paid in the presence, of a particular person. It will be then seen as to whether the statement of such a witness inspires confidence and is to be believed or not. The ground for throwing out the evidence of the witnesses of the landlord, according to me, is not well based. Naturally, when the tenancy is oral, it can only be proved by oral evidence and the details of evidence are not to be pleaded in the ejectment petition.

The learned Rent Controller did not believe the evidence of the respondent-tenant that the rent even at the rate of Rs. 250/- had been paid by the tenant to the landlord since November, 1991. According to the Rent Controller, the tenant had failed to prove by any sufficient evidence the mode of payment of rent from November 1, 1989 to December, 1991. No rent receipt or any other document had been placed on record by the tenant to show the payment of rent by him. The Rent Controller held that the tenant was in arrears of rent and liable to be ejected.

The Appellate Authority on appeal filed by the tenant upheld the findings of the learned rent Controller and the order of ejectment of the tenant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that once the landlord was disbelieved regarding the rate of rent, he should not be believed at all that no payment of rent had been made to him. In these circumstances, the tenant''s statement that he had made the payment to the landlord @ Rs. 250/- per mensem should be believed ipso facto.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that there is no merit in this revision petition. Apart from the fact that it is a pure finding of fact by two courts that the petitioner-tenant is in arrears of rent. I am of the view that in the present case, whatever had been pleaded by the petitioner-landlord should have been ipso facto taken to be a gospel truth inasmuch the written statement allegedly filed by the tenant could not be looked into at all. The written statement has not been signed by the tenant. It is not even verified. The provisions of the CPC apply to the proceedings under the Act and the written statement without the signatures of the tenant and verification could not be looked into. In other words, the rate of rent and the ground of non-payment of rent on the basis of the pleadings by the landlord and his evidence should have been ipso facto believed. Be that as it may, both the Courts have found on appreciation of evidence that the tenant had failed to prove the payment of rent and having found that he was in arrears of rent, the ejectment is well based. It may be observed here that even if a landlord fails to prove the rate of rent, it is not a question of disbelieving him. The Court may come to the conclusion that there is no sufficient evidence to came to a particular conclusion and on that ground it may hold that the rate of rent is not the one as suggested by the landlord. In such a case, it may be a case of lack of evidence to prove a particular point and not a question of disbelief.

For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in this revision petition, which is hereby dismissed. However, the tenant is given one month''s time to vacate the premises.