IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.7230 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : August 28, 2009 Paramjit Kaur .....Petitioner versus Shiv Mandir Pabbian Charitable Society .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.N.S.Sodhi, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 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. This revision revision petition is directed by the tenant who has been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises comprising a shop situated on Moga Road, within the municipal limits of Dharmkot, by the Rent Controller, Moga vide order dated 7.9.2007 and whose appeal against the said eviction order, has also been dismissed by the Appellate Authority Moga, vide its judgment dated 12.6.2008. The facts may be noticed briefly. The respondent-charitable Society-cum landlord filed an eviction petition, inter-alia, alleging that the shop in dispute was rented out to the petitioner-tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.450/- and rent note dated C.R. No.7230 of 2008 (O&M) 2 22.4.1998 executed by her in favour of the landlord-society. It was alleged that the petitioner-tenant is liable to be evicted, inter-alia, on the grounds that: (i) she has not paid or tendered the arrears of rent from 1.10.1999; (ii) she has ceased to occupy the demised premises for a continuous period of 4 months and the shop is lying closed and locked. The petitioner contested the eviction petition and took up a plea that as a matter of fact her husband Darshan Singh (since deceased) was inducted as a tenant @ Rs.150/- per month more than 20 years back and after his death, the tenancy stood inherited by her alongwith her three sons and a daughter who have not been impleaded as party-respondents and thus, the eviction petition is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties. The petitioner also disputed the rate of rent and execution of any rent note as claimed by the respondent-society. From the pleadings, the Rent Controller framed the following issues:- “1) Whether the rate of rent of demise premises is Rs.450/- per month? OPA. 2) If Issue No.1 is proved, whether the tender made by respondent is short and invalid? OPA. 3) Whether the respondent is ceased to occupy the demise premises for a continuous period of more than 4 months? OPP. 4) Whether the ejectment application is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 5) Whether the applicant has no locus standi to file the ejectment application? OPD. 6) Whether the present application is bad for non-joinder C.R. No.7230 of 2008 (O&M) 3 of the necessary parties? OPD. 7) Relief.” In support of Issue No.1, the respondent-society has brought on record the rent note (Ex.A-3) duly signed by the petitioner and two witnesses Ajit Singh (AW-2) and Jagtar Singh. The petitioner, in her deposition, alleged that the rent note (Ex.A-3) is a forged and fabricated document. She relied upon the rent receipts Ex.R-1 to R-54 to show that her deceased husband was a tenant in the demised shop. The petitioner also produced a clerk of the Municipal Committee, Dharamkot who brought a photocopy of the assessment register to show that the petitioner has never occupied the shop in dispute as a tenant. The Rent Controller, after considering the evidence of the stamp vendor and the marginal witness- Ajit Singh Pabbi, held that execution of the rent agreement (Ex.A-3) by the petitioner-tenant in favour of the respondent-society stands proved. It was observed that the petitioner never requested for appointment of a hand- writing expert to substantiate her plea. As regards the rent receipts Ex.R-1 to R-54, the Rent Controller observed that these receipts pertain to the period upto 27.1.1991, whereas, the tenancy in favour of the petitioner incepted only from 22.4.1998 vide rent note Ex.A-3. The Rent Controller accordingly held that there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the agreed rate of rent was @ Rs.450/- per month with a further clause to increase @ Rs.50/- per month after every year. The Rent Controller also referred to the assessment register of the Municipal Committee (Ex.R-57), wherein the name of the petitioner as C.R. No.7230 of 2008 (O&M) 4 well as her husband are mentioned as occupiers of one of the shops and that the clerk of the Municipal Committee, Harnek Singh (RW2) has admitted during his cross-examination that as per their record, the petitioner is in possession of one of the shop as a tenant. In this backdrop, the Rent Controller further held that the tender of arrears of rent made by the petitioner @ Rs.150/ per month was short. The other ground of eviction, however, could not be proved by the respondent-society. The Rent Controller accordingly passed a conditional order of eviction against the petitioner directing her to deposit the arrears of rent within six months from the date of passing of the order failing which she was liable to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent-society. The petitioner went in appeal which has also been dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Moga, vide its order dated 12.6.2008 while observing as follows:- “The appellant-tenant claimed that the premises in dispute were taken on rent by Darshan Singh her husband 20 years ago at the rate of Rs.150/- per month. She has also placed on record the receipts Ex.R-12 to Ex.R-54. It is rightly pointed out that the said rent receipts are upto the period of 5.2.1993. The present tenancy started after the execution of rent note Ex.A-3. Thereafter, the appellant-tenant has failed to produce any rent receipt to show that the landlord ever accepted the rent at the rate of Rs.150/- per month. Therefore, the appellant has failed to establish that the shop in question was taken on rent by her at the rate of Rs.150/- per C.R. No.7230 of 2008 (O&M) 5 month after the execution of rent note Ex.A-3. She is bound by its terms and conditions. Keeping in view this rent note, the tender made by the tenant is short and invalid. The Rent Controller has rightly given sufficient time to the tenant to make the payment of balance rent failing which she is liable to be evicted from the premises in dispute. With this observation, the ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller does not require any interference and the same is upheld.” Still aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned judgments. The records of the Courts below have also been sent for and perused. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that since the rent note (Ex.A-3) is not a registered document, no reliance could be placed upon it. Counsel also referred to the rent receipts (Ex.R-1 to R-54) to contend that the petitioner is in possession of the shop being one of the legal heirs of the deceased-tenant as after his death the tenancy has been inherited by the petitioner and her children and thus, there was no necessity for her to execute a fresh rent note which at the best is a sham transaction. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the contentions, I do not find any merit in this revision petition. The rent note (Ex.A-3), even if not registered, can still be relied upon for collateral purposes. The Rent Controller has also relied upon the other evidence on record to hold that the petitioner is a tenant in the demised premises. Be that as it may, there is nothing on the record to show that after the death of the petitioner’s C.R. No.7230 of 2008 (O&M) 6 husband she ever occupied the shop till she was inducted as tenant in the year 1998. Similarly, the rent receipts Ex.R-1 to R.54 are of no legal consequence as the same pertain to the period prior to July, 1991. As the petitioner has failed to tender the arrears of rent despite 6 months’ reasonable period granted by the Rent Controller and she has also not offered the payment of such arrears before the Appellate Authority or this Court, no interference with the impugned orders is called for by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. 28-08-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE