Smt. Dhanesh Bala vs Sewa Ram etc.

Rajendra Nath Mital, J.—This revision petition has been filed by the tenant against the judgment of the Appellate Authority, Gurgaon, affirming the order of the Rent Controller ordering her ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent.

Briefly, the facts are that the property in dispute is alleged to have been let out by Sewa Ram landlord to Rati Ram, Respondent No. 2. The landlord filed an application for ejectment against Rati Ram on the ground of non-payment of rent. The latter was served for 18th May, 1976 but he did not appear on that date Consequently, he was proceeded against ex pane. On the same date, Smt. Daanesh Bala filed an application for being impleaded as a party on the ground that in fact she was the tenant in the premises. The learned Rent Controller impleaded her as the party on 23rd July, 1976. She, in her written statement dated 12th August, 1976, controverted the allegations of the Petitioner and pleaded that she had paid the rent.

The Rent Controller, after recording the evidence, came to the conclusion that she did not pay the rent. Consequently he ordered her ejectment. In appeal, the judgment of the Rent Controller was affirmed. She has come up in revision against the judgment of the Appellate Authority to this Court.

The only question that arises for determination in the present case is as to whether the rent has been paid by the Petitioner or not. Both the Courts below have held that the rent was not paid by her. That being a finding of fact is binding on this Court.

Faced with that situation, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner sought to urge that it was the duty of the Rent Controller to have granted her fifteen days time from 23rd July, 1976, when she was impleaded as a party, to deposit the rent. According to him, as no time was given, the order was liable to be set aside. I regret my inability to accept the contention.

I have gone through Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, but do not find any direction to the Rent Controller to grant time. However, the Petitioner, if she so desired, could deposit the rent within fifteen days from the date of first hearing. She did not choose to deposit any rent. On the other hand, she took a plea that she had already paid the rent. That claim of the Petitioner, as already said above, has been negatived by both the Courts below. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

For the aforesaid reasons, the revision petition fails and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.