IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.R. No.: 132/2008 Decided on.14.7.2008 Jagan Nath alias Billu. …Petitioner. Versus Girdhari Lal and others. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No. For the petitioner : Mr. Naresh K. Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : None. Rajiv Sharma, J. (oral) A challenge has been laid by way of this Civil Revision preferred under section 24 (5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 against the judgment dated 30th May, 2008 passed by the learned Appellate Authority (II), Una, District Una in rent appeal No. 5 of 2006. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that the respondents (hereinafter referred to as ‘the landlords’ for convenience sake) had preferred the petition for eviction against the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the tenant’ for convenience sake) from the demised premises. The tenants are stated to be carrying out the business of manufacturing and selling wooden furniture in the premises. The 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 petition was filed before the Rent Controller (I), Amb for eviction of the tenants for non-payment of arrears of rent. According to the landlords, the tenant was in arrears since October 2000 to March 2003 and thereafter since May 2003 to January 2004 @ Rs. 600/- per month. The tenant has paid the rent till September 2000 @ Rs. 600/- per month and thereafter he has paid Rs. 600/- for the month of April, 2003 only. The rent petition was resisted by the tenant. The learned Rent Controller has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the respondent is in arrear of rent if so to what amount? OPR. 2. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPP. 3. Whether the petitioners have concealed material facts from the court? OPR. 4. Relief. The learned Rent Controller has recorded the following findings on the aforementioned issues: Issue No.1 Yes. Issue No.2 No. Issue No.3 No. Relief Petition allowed as per operative portion of the order. The learned Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenants from the demised premises and worked out the total arrears up to June, 2006 along with statutory interests @ 9% per annum as Rs. 51,357 with costs assessed at Rs. 1000/-. The tenant preferred an appeal against the order of the learned Rent Controller (I), Amb before the Appellate Authority (II), Una on 31.7.2006. The learned Appellate Authority has framed the following points for determination: 1. Whether the findings returned by the learned Rent Controller that the tenant is in arrears of rent are legally sustainable on facts and law and is based on 3 the correct appreciation of evidence led by the parties or not? 2. Relief. The learned Appellate Authority has returned the following findings on the aforementioned point: Point No.1 Yes. Relief: Appeal dismissed per operative part of the judgment. The learned Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 30.5.2008. This Civil Revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 30.5.2008 passed by the learned Appellate Authority. I have heard Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners and have also gone through the judgment of the learned Rent Controller and learned Appellate Authority carefully. Asha Rana PW-1 has brought on record the compromise entered into between Girdhari Lal, Landlord and tenant and the certified copy of the same is Ex.PW-1/A which according to this witness was true as per original dated 28.1.2003. According to PW-2 Bahadur Singh, a complaint was filed by the landlord Girdhari Lal on 8.8.2002 before the Nagar Panchayat against the tenant and thereafter on 28.3.2003, both the parties agreed and entered into compromise vide Ex.PW-1/A. He has identified his signatures on the copy Ex.PW-1/A in mark-A. PW-3 Sanjeev Kumar has prepared the site plan Ex.PW-3/A showing the demised premises. PW-4 Girdhari Lal, Landlord, has deposed that site plan Ex.PW-3/A bears his signatures prepared by PW-3 Sanjeev Kumar. He has deposed before the Rent Controller that the rent has not been paid since October 2000 to March 2003 and thereafter since May 2003 to January 2004. The tenant has appeared as RW-1. He has deposed that he has paid the entire arrears up to April, 4 2003. He has taken receipt in the month of April, 2003 amounting to Rs. 600/- from the landlord. He has admitted his signatures on Ex.PW-1/A. He has denied the execution of Ex.PW-1/A. PW-2 and PW-4 have proved that the tenant has put his signatures on Ex.PW-1./A. It is apparent from the judgment of the trial court that since October 2000 to March, 2003 and May, 2003 to January 2004 the rent was due to be paid by the tenant to the landlords. The agreed rent was Rs. 600/- per month. These arrears were to be paid on or before 30th June, 2003 as per Ex.PW-1/A dated 28.1.2003. Thereafter from the month of April, 2003 onwards, rent @ Rs. 600/- was to be paid every month on or before 10th of each month. Mr. Naresh K. Thakur, Advocate has strenuously argued that his client has already paid a sum of Rs. 18,000/- and the landlord has accepted the rent in the month of April, 2003 and the receipt thereof was also issued. The receipt which has been issued in the month of April, 2003 pertains to the rent of this month only. There is neither any documentary nor any oral evidence led by the tenant that a sum of Rs. 18,000/- has been paid as agreed on the basis of Ex.PW-1/A. If the tenant had paid a sum of Rs. 18,000/- as claimed by him, he should have in possession of a valid receipt issued by the landlords. Mere tendering of a sum of Rs. 600/- as rent for the month of April, 2003 will not amount to admission of payment of Rs. 18,000/- by the landlord. It is apparent that the tenant had agreed to pay the arrears as mentioned in Ex.PW-1/A, but had wriggled out of the same by paying a sum of Rs. 600/- only towards the rent for the month of April, 2003 on 10th May, 2003. The tenant had to pay the arrears on or before 30th June, 2003. Accordingly it is held that the tenant is in arrear of rent from October, 2000 to March, 2003 and May, 2003 to January, 2004 and onwards. The findings recorded by both the courts below are in 5 accordance with law. There is neither any jurisdictional error nor any procedural illegality in the judgments of both the courts. Consequently, there is no merit in the Civil Revision and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. July 14, 2008 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*