CR No.7765 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.7765 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.01.2011 **** Ramesh Kumar . . . . Petitioner Vs. Inderpal Singh and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: - Mr.Sanjay Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against order passed by the Rent Controller, Ropar dated 30.7.2009 of eviction of the petitioner from the demised shop on the ground of non-payment of rent and sub-letting. The order of the learned Rent Controller was upheld by the Appellate Authority. In the revision, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the rent note dated 20.7.2004 was an act of fraud as it was forged and fabricated document as his signature was taken on the blank paper, which was then converted into the rent note. However, the finding recorded by the learned Appellate Authority in para No.15 of its order, reads as follows: “I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is admitted fact that initially the shop in question was owned by Chhaju Ram and it has been proved on record that Chhaju Ram rented out the shop in question alongwith Chobara to Ramesh Kumar respondent No.1 on 28.11.1978 vide Ex.R3 and R4 at the monthly rent of Rs.70/-. The petitioner has proved on record agreement dated 29.7.2004 Ex.P3 and P4. On 29.7.2004 the petitioner stated to had rented the premises in question to respondent No.1. From Ex.P4, it is clear that the shop in question was agreed to be rented out to respondent CR No.7765 of 2010 (O&M) -2- No.1 on 29.7.2004 by the petitioner at the monthly rent of Rs.200/-. On the other hand the respondent/appellant denied having executed agreement Ex.P3 and P4 and these are stated to be forged and fabricated documents and signatures on Ex.P3 and P4 stated to had been obtained under force. But there is no evidence on the record to prove the forgery committed by the petitioner/respondent. It is also an admitted fact that the previous landlord rented out the shop in question to respondent No.1 at the monthly rent of Rs.70/-. When respondent No.1 had executed agreement dated 20.7.2004 in which one of the recital was that the rate of rent was Rs.200/- per month, but the appellant has failed to tender the rent at the rate of Rs.200/ per month from 29.7.2004 onwards. As such the petitioner has rightly claimed the arrears of rent from 29.7.2007 till the filing of the petition. But the rent was tendered at the rate of Rs.70/- per month from 6.5.2004 to 6.10.2005, whereas the respondent should tender the arrears of rent from 29.7.2004 at the rate of Rs.200/- per month. Therefore, he is also liable to be evicted on this ground.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that since the petitioner was already settled as tenant since 1978 and demised premises was purchased by the landlord when he was already settled as tenant, there was no question of executing any fresh rent note on 20.7.2004. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the finding recorded in para 15 of order passed by the learned Appellate Authority is on the basis of appreciation of evidence as the petitioner has not only failed to point out forgery or fabrication in the rent note but also has failed to tender the rent @ Rs.200/- per month as fixed by way of the said rent note. In view thereof, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and as such the same is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JANUARY 25, 2011 JUDGE Vivek