IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4469 of 2007 Date of Decision : 25.11.2009 Gori Sham .....Petitioner versus Roshan Lal .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate, with Mr.I.S.Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mrs.G.K.Turka, Advocate, for the respondent. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed by the petitioner-landlord against the order dated 16.8.2007 passed by the Rent Controller, Rajpura, whereby the respondent-tenant has been permitted to institute a criminal complaint against the petitioner-landlord under Section 19 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). Section 19 of the Act provides action against a person who contravenes the provisions of the Act and makes himself liable to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in case of contravention of Section 6 (i) (a) or Section 7 C.R. No.4469 of 2007 (O&M) 2 (i) of the Act, makes himself punishable with imprisonment which may extend to two years with fine. In order to appreciate the controversy, it may be noticed that the petitioner-landlord had earlier filed an eviction petition against the respondent-tenant, inter-alia, on the ground that he has not tendered the arrears of rent alongwith House Tax w.e.f. 5.8.1999. Upon notice, the respondent-tenant appeared before the Rent Controller, Rajpura, on 10.6.2000 and made a request to permit him to tender the arrears of rent. The permission was granted and the respondent- tenant tendered the rent alongwith the House Tax for the year 1999-2000 amounting to Rs.1512/-. Thereafter, the respondent-tenant filed a petition under Section 19 of the Act seeking prosecution of the petitioner-landlord on the ground that the arrears of House Tax for the year 1999-2000 amounting to Rs.1512/- were got recovered from him dishonestly though the same had already been deposited by him in the Treasury on 9.8.1999 alongwith the House Tax for the years 1997-98 and 1998-99. The undisputed facts are that the arrears of House Tax for the years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 were due and deposited by the respondent-tenant with the Municipality, Rajpura, vide receipt No.2396 dated 9.8.1999 only. There is not an iota of evidence on record or even a whisper that any intimation regarding the said deposit was given to the petitioner-landlord. In any case, nothing prevented the respondent-tenant on 10.6.2000 when he appeared before the Court, to take a plea or infrom the C.R. No.4469 of 2007 (O&M) 3 Court and the landlord that he had already deposited the arrears of house tax for the aforesaid period with the Municipality, Rajpura and he is not liable to tender the same. The petitioner-landlord had apparently no knowledge regarding deposit of the House Tax by the respondent-tenant with the Municipality, Rajpura, especially when the tenant was in arrears of House-tax since the year 1997-98. It is, thus, apparent that the respondent-tenant deliberately concealed the factum of deposit of House Tax with the Municipality on 10.6.2000 and voluntarily tendered the House Tax for the said year, may be in order to create a ground to harass the petitioner-landlord by initiating proceedings under Section 19 of the Act. The Rent Controller, Rajpura, without arriving at a specific finding that the facts regarding deposit of the House Tax by the respondent-tenant were in the knowledge of the respondent-landlord and yet he filed the eviction petition on the plea of non-deposit thereof, has allowed the application vide the impugned order. For the reasons aforestated, the revision petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 16.8.2007 is set-aside and the application moved by the respondent-tenant under Section 19 of the Act, is dismissed with a cost of Rs.2000/-. Dasti. 25-11-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE