State of Punjab vs Smt. Balwant kaur

J.V. Gupta, J.—This Is tenant''s petition against whom the order of ejectment has been passed by both the authorities below on account of the non-payment of the arrears of rent.

The house, in dispute, was rented out to the State of Punjab originally on May 1, 1969, at the rate to be assessed by the P.W. D. Rs. 434/- per month were assessed by it as such. Later on, the pro-property, in dispute, was re-assessed by the P.W. D. at the rate of Rs. 670/- per month The said rent was paid by the tenant with effect from April 1, 1973. Subsequently, there was some dispute between the landlady and the tenant. Consequently, the application for ejectment was filed on April 26, 1975, mainly on the ground of non-payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 670/- per month from January 1, 1974, onwards. On the first date of hearing, i.e., June 12, 1975, the rent was paid at the rate of Rs. 434/- per month. At that time, the rent paid earlier in excess, i.e., at the rate of Rs. 670/- instead of Rs. 434/- per month, with effect from April 1, 1973, was also deducted. The said rent Was accepted under protest. Ultimately, the main controversy between the parties remained as to the rate of the rent of the building, in question. The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that it could not be held that the building was taken on rent at the fixed rate of Rs. 434/- per month. It was further found that the conduct of the parties shows that the assessment of rent was to be obtained every year and it was on the said assessment that the rent was being paid. Thus, ultimately, it was held that the rate of rent for the period, in question, was Rs. 670/- per month; Since the arrears of rent due were not paid at this rate on the first date of hearing, the order of ejectment was passed against the tenant. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said finding of the trial Court and, thus, maintained the order of ejectment passed against the tenant. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has come up in revision to this Court.

Vide this Court''s order dated July 19, 1977, dispossession of the demised premises was stayed inter alia if the arrears of rent due at the rate of Rs. 670/- per month were deposited within one month. Since the Department failed to make the necessary payment within the time allowed, the stay order stood vacated and the landlady in execution of the order of ejectment got the possession of the premises, in dispute.

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently contended that the rate of rent was Rs. 434/- per month and it has been wrongly held by both the authorities below that the rent was to be assessed by the P.W. D every year and it was Rs. 670/- per month at the relevant time The Learned Counsel mainly relied upon the writing, Exhibit R. 2, February 27, 1974, which is an undertaking given on behalf of the general attorney of the landlady. The said undertaking is as follows:-

I undertake that if the rent of Doll Making Centre is paid to me at the, present assessed rate viz. Rs 670/- P.M. I shall refund the extra amount if on further re-assessment the same is assessed at less than, Rs. 670/- P.M. If, however, it is assessed at a higher figure, the balance excess will be paid to me.

According to the Learned Counsel vide letter dated April 29, 1974, Exhibit R. 8, the rent was assessed at the rate of Rs. 434/- per month by the Executive Engineer, Mohali Construction Division, Punjab P.W. D. B&R Branch, Chandigarh, and, therefore in view of the said undertaking the landlady was only entitled to the rent at that rate and the rent paid in excess was to be deducted However, after going through the relevant documentary evidence on the record I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the concurrent findings of the authorities below as to be interfered with in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.

In the undertaking Exhibit P. 2, the rent was to be re-assessed by the P.W. D. In the letter sent alongwith the non availability certificate annexed to, Exhibit R. 8, it is quite evident that no rent was re-assessed. Only the rent assessed subsequently at the rate of Rs. 670/- per month was withdrawn on the protest of the department concerned. Thus, it could not be successfully argued that any rent was assessed subsequent to the said undertaking. The landlady was bound by the undertaking only if the rent as such was re assessed by the P.W. D. There is no evidence on the record to prove that any-such re-assessment was made by the P.W. D. Admittedly, the Department did pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 670/- per month from April 1, 1973 to December 31, 1975. In the absence of any cogent evidence to the contrary, the tenant was liable to pay the rent at the said rate unless it could be proved that after the said undertaking, the rent was re assessed at a lesser rate by the P.W. D.

In this view of the matter, this revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs.