Krishan Lal vs Balwant Rai and Others

J.V. Gupta, C.J.—This is landlord''s revision petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.

The landlord Krishan Lal sought the ejectment of his tenants from the demised premises alleging that the premises were let out at a monthly rent of Rs. 40/- and the tenant were in arrears of rent from May 1, 1980, whereas the ejectment application was filed on February 2, 1984; and that he bona fide required the premises for his own use and occupation. The stand taken by the tenant was that the rent was Rs. 5/- per month and not Rs. 40/- per month, as alleged. It was also denied that landlord bona fide required the premises for his own use and occupation. The learned Rent Controller after considering the evidence concluded that the application was a mala fide one and it was neither a case of sub-letting nor the premises were required bona fide by the landlord for his use and occupation. The monthly rent was found to be Rs. 3/- and not Rs. 40/-. Thus, the tender was held to be valid. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned appellate authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and thus maintained the order rejecting the application.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are entries in the house tax register that the rent was Rs. 40/. and according to the learned counsel, that evidence has not been properly considered.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties. I do not find any merit in this revision petition It is not disputed that the demised premises are exempt from the payment of the house-tax. If no house-tax is payable, then the entries in the house-tax register were of no consequence. Thus, there is no illegality in the concurrent findings of the two authorities below as to be interfered with in the re visional jurisdiction.

Consequently, this revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs. 500/- as the application has been found to be mala fide by bath the authorities below and the landlord did not come to the Court with clean hands.