Surjit Singh vs Sodhi Harjit Singh

V.S. Aggarwal, J.—Surjit Singh has filed the present revision directed against the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority dated 3.4.1982. By virtue of the same, the learned Appellate Authority had set aside the order passed by the learned Rent Controller and instead passed an order of eviction against the petitioner.

The relevant facts are that the respondent filed an eviction application against the petitioner with respect of the room in dispute. It was alleged that the petitioner is a tenant in the suit premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 40/- and that the petitioner has not paid the arrears of rent form 1.2.1977. The total amount stated to be due was Rs. 1,480/-, Rs. 208/- had already been paid. In the reply filed, petitioner has contested the eviction application asserting that the application barred by time. Earlier, a petitioner for the eviction was filed. The same was dismissed by the Rent Controller. The agreed rent was stated to be Rs. 13/-. The respondent wanted increase in the rent. The petitioner is a poor Cobbler. He showed his inability to increase the rent. The rent was tendered at the rate of Rs. 13/- per month and the ground of eviction did not survive.

The learned Rent Controller had framed the issues and recorded evidence. On perusal of evidence, it was held that the rent was Rs. 13/- per month. The petitioner had paid Rs. 100/- to Sukhdev Singh and given adjustment of the same. There was tender of the entire rent. The petition was dismissed.

The respondent had preferred appeal. The learned Appellate Authority held that the said payment of Rs. 100/- has not been proved because there was no cogent material to come to that conclusion. Sukhdev Singh was not special or general attorney of the respondent. It was held, therefore, that the tender of the rent was short. An order of eviction was passed.

Aggrieved by the same, present revision petition had been filed. When the same was listed for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the respondent.

As is apparent from the result of the facts given above, the short question that comes up for consideration is as to whether adjustment of Rs. 100/- alleged to have been paid to Sukhdev Singh could be given or not. It is not in controversy that if the adjustment of the said amount is given to the petitioner, the ground of eviction on non-payment or rent will not survive because no controversy even was raised before the learned Appellate Authority with respect to the agreed rate of rent.

It is true that it is a finding of fact arrived at by the learned Appellate Authority. In normal circumstances, it would bind this Court but if there is misreading of evidence, indeed, this would be the impropriety and illegality which must be set aside.

During the course of evidence, Amar Kaur, attorney of respondent appeared as AWI. She is the mother of the respondent-landlord. The attention of the witness was drawn towards receipt Exhibit R-1. She could not say if it is signed by Sukhdev Singh. In other words, there was no clear or unambiguous denial. The petitioner''s case was specific that Sukhdev Singh had collected the rent and had charged Rs. 100/- on the basis of his receipt. Sukhdev Singh is the son of Amar Kaur. One is, therefore, not surprised that rent could be paid to him. It is not always necessary that Sukhdev Singh must have had a special or general power of attorney when he came and collected the rent. Even Amar Kaur was feeling shy of denying the signatures of Sukdev Singh on receipt Exhibit R. 1. The only logical conclusion would be that the payment must be proved to have been made to Sukhdev Singh which was on behalf of the respondent. Therefore, the ground of eviction did not survive. The leaned Appellate Authority misread the evidence.

For these reasons, the revision petition is allowed that the impugned judgment of the learned Appellate Authority is set aside. Instead, eviction petition is dismissed.

10.Revision allowed.