Civil Revision No. 3466 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 3466 of 2008 Date of Decision: 10.9.2010 Shri Dalip Kumar Khanna …Petitioner Versus Kumar Kuldeep Singh and Another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Baldev Raj Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajinder Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The petitioner has sought eviction of the respondents from the demised shops bearing private Nos. 2 and 3 forming part of Building No. 6-C, Basant Nagar, Majitha Road, Opposite Gopal Mandir, Amritsar. The rate of rent fixed was Rs.1,800/- per month. It is stated that a rent note Ex.AW.2/1 was executed by respondent No.1/tenant in favour of the landlord on 2.12.1994. In the rent note, it was agreed that the rent would be increased by 10% after every two years. The monthly rent in the year was increased and raised to Rs.2,000/-, as mutually agreed by both the parties. It was stated that the rent was paid at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month till September 1996 by making an endorsement to Civil Revision No. 3466 of 2008 2 that effect on the back of the original rent note. Thereafter, a sum of Rs.28,000/- was paid on different dates against the receipts and the tenant was in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.11.1997 till 31.10.1998 at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month. The Second ground pleaded was that without any written consent, the demised premises was further let out by respondent No.1 Kumar Kuldeep Singh to respondent No.2 Neeta Singh. Thus, the eviction was also sought on the ground of subletting as well. Respondent No.1 had appeared and stated that the petitioner/landlord had not approached the Rent Controller with clean hands. It was further stated that the rent was regularly paid by him. Furthermore, the rent w.e.f. 1.5.1999 to 30.11.1999 along with the interest and cost as assessed, was also tendered in the Court . The clause of 10% increase, in the rent note, was denied and stated that the rate of rent was Rs.1,800/- per month. The increase of rent by Rs.200/- in the year 1996 was also denied. Thereafter, on completion of the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller had formulated the following issues:- “...1. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent as prayed for? OPA 2. Whether the respondent No.1 has sublet the shops in question, to respondent No.2 without the consent of the applicant? OPA 3. Whether the application is not maintainable in the present form? OPR 4. Whether the applicant is estopped by his Civil Revision No. 3466 of 2008 3 own act and conduct from filing the present application? OPR 5. Relief”. The landlord had examined Manoj Mehra as AW.1, Parshotam Lal Mehra as AW.2, Sukhjinder Pal Singh as AW.3, Kanhaiya Lal as AW.4 and he himself appeared as AW.5. He had also tendered into his evidence the order of House Tax Assessment Ex.AX. Respondent No.1 had himself appeared as RW.1 and tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.RW.1/A. He had also examined other witnesses. The Rent Controller, Amritsar, vide his order dated 10.8.2004, came to the conclusion that by mutual understanding, the clause in the rent note that the rent would be increased by 10% was not acted upon. He has further held that the tenant was in arrears of rent for the period from 1.12.1997 to 30.4.1999. After perusal of the evidence, it was held that the landlord has failed to prove the ground of subletting of the demised premises by respondent No.1 Kumar Kuldeep Singh to respondent No.2 Neeta Singh. Therefore, the ejectment petition was dismissed. However, in view of the law laid down in Rakesh Wadhawan v. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation AIR 2002 Supreme Court 2004, an opportunity was granted to the tenant to make the deficiency in the rent good within a period of one month. The findings given by the Rent Controller were affirmed by the Appellate Authority, Amritsar, vide his order dated 28.4.2008. Mr. Rajinder Sharma, Advocate, appearing for respondent No.1/tenant has submitted that the order indeed was complied with and Civil Revision No. 3466 of 2008 4 the rent was deposited. Admittedly, the rent note was not registered, which was only for the period of 11 months. For the enforcement of the rent note, no active steps were taken by the petitioner/landlord. The findings, on the basis of appreciation of evidence, recorded by both the Courts below that it was mutually agreed that the rent would be Rs.1,800/- per month and thereafter the same was increased to Rs.2,000/- per month. Thereafter, the rent was not increased. The Rent Controller held that the tenant/respondent was in arrears of rent from 1.12.1997 to 30.4.1999 at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month subject to adjustment of rent tendered in excess by the tenant in the Court from 1.5.1999 to 30.11.1999. The Appellate Authority has also upheld this finding. At this stage, this Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, cannot re-appreciate and do re-appraisal of the evidence. Hence, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge September 10, 2010 “DK”