Civil Revision No.7366 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.7366 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: November 30, 2011 Lakhmi Chand .....Petitioner v. Daya Nand .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Mansur Ali, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.28531-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. C.M.No.28532-CII of 2011 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, delay of 8 days in filing the present revision petition is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No.28533-CII of 2011 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, petitioner is permitted to make good the deficiency in Court fee. However, it has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has already made good the deficiency in Court fee. Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No.28534-CII of 2011 Requests for placing on record documents Annexures P1 and Civil Revision No.7366 of 2011(O&M) -2- P2. The same are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of accordingly. Civil Revision No.7366 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed against judgment and decree dated 11.8.2011 passed by appellate authority, Sonepat, dismissing appeal filed by present petitioner-landlord against order dated 27.11.2010 passed by Rent Controller, Gohana, dismissing petition filed by present petitioner-landlord under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1973 (for short `the Act') for ejectment of respondent-tenant from the demised premises on the ground of non-payment of rent. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Briefly stated, the shop bearing Municipal No.232 situated in Old Anaj Mandi Tehsil Gohana, District Sonepat, owned by present petitioner-landlord was let out to respondent-tenant for running a clinic/hospital. Assertion of petitioner-landlord is that it was given on monthly rent of `2,000/- whereas assertion of respondent-tenant is that rate of rent was only `500/- per month. Petitioner-landlord has taken the plea that respondent is in arrears of rent from July 2001, whereas assertion of respondent-tenant is that he already made payment of rent upto June 2004 and the rent for subsequent period was tendered before the Rent Controller. There are two other issues for eviction. Firstly, the respondent has created Civil Revision No.7366 of 2011(O&M) -3- nuisance as some bad elements used to visit the shop in occupation of the respondent and the another ground is that he had also materially impaired the value and utility of the shop in dispute. No sufficient evidence was adduced and hence both the Courts have decided the said issues against the present petitioner. Nothing has been argued on the said issues by learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court. However, both the Courts below came to the conclusion that rate of rent was only `500/- per month as claimed by respondent-tenant, as petitioner-landlord has failed to prove that rate of rent is `2,000/- per month. Plea of present petitioner-landlord was also not accepted that respondent-tenant is in arrears of rent since July 2001 and hence, it was held that there was valid tender of rent by respondent-tenant and hence, petition was dismissed. It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord that both the Courts have committed illegality in coming to the conclusion that rate of rent was `500/- per month and not `2,000/- per month. It is also contended that both the Courts have committed illegality in coming to the conclusion that rent was already paid upto June 2004. However, there is no force in this contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. Both the Courts have given sufficient reasons for arriving at concurrent finding on both the issues. On the point of quantum of rent, admittedly there is no rent note. Tenancy is oral. Petitioner has claimed that tenancy commenced from 1.1.2001 whereas respondent has accepted the tenancy from 1.6.2001. It has come on the record that a part of the premises in dispute was rented out Civil Revision No.7366 of 2011(O&M) -4- to Superintendent of Post Office, Sonepat, Division Sonepat @ `1800/- per month. The area of the said premises is double the area in possession of present respondent-tenant. There are two other small tenants in other two shops. Petitioner has not examined any one of them. He has also not shown as to what is the rent being paid by them. No evidence whatsoever has been adduced by petitioner-plaintiff to show that rate of rent was @ `2000/- per month. There is another aspect of this case. Petitioner is a businessman. He is maintaining account books. He is an assessee and pays sales tax and however, he has with-held the best evidence to show the rate of rent being received by him from respondent-tenant. Hence, both the Courts have rightly come to the conclusion that the rate of rent is `5,00/- per month as claimed by respondent-tenant. So far as the other assertion is concerned as to since when respondent-tenant is in arrears of the rent, it has been rightly observed by learned Courts below that once plea of petitioner-landlord on the rate of rent is not being accepted, his version that respondent is in arrears of rent since the very inception of the tenancy cannot be accepted. Admittedly, no rent receipt was issued by petitioner-landlord to respondent-tenant. Learned first appellate Court has given sufficient reasons while accepting the version of respondent-tenant that he already paid rent upto July 2001. The relevant paragraphs read as under:- “34. Lakhmi Chand (PW1) has conceded that such application was made by the tenant against him about one and a half or two years ago. His statement was recorded on 31.7.2006. He further clarified that earlier the tenant was paying rent but when acrimony started and relations became Civil Revision No.7366 of 2011(O&M) -5- strained between them, he had stopped making payment of rent. It is thus clear from admission of landlord Lakhmi Chand (PW1) that the tenant had been paying the rent without any default. 35. The first expression of resentment against the tenant from the landlord comes in legal notice dated 8.6.2004 (Ex.RA) which was duly received by the tenant and was also countered by reply dated 3.8.2004 (Ex.D1). 36. Conjoint reading of legal notice (Ex.RA) and reply (Ex.D1) is sufficient to show that the relationship between the parties had become strained. When legal notice dated 8.6.2004 (Ex.RA) by the landlord is read in relation to statement of the tenant made on 17.11.2004 (regarding payment of arrears of rent upto June, 2004), version of the tenant gets support from categorical admission of the landlord in his statement made on oath on 31.7.2006 and is also a reflection resentment having been articulated in legal notice (Ex.RA). When contents of legal notice (Ex.RA) are read in relation to admission on oath by the landlord, it is clear that period of arrears of rent was taken back in chronology by the landlord to July 2011 to make it of maximum duration possible under the law of limitation. In short, demanding of arrears of rent from July 2001, when premises had been given on rent only in June, 2001 even otherwise becomes incongruous. To suffer repetition, landlord has already been belied with regard to his assertion of rate of rent. 37. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances, plea of the tenant that he had paid rent up to June, 2004 (though without issuance of receipts by the landlord) is sustained and supported by own admission of landlord Lakhmi Chand (PW1). Landlord Lakhmi Chand in his statement as PW1 recorded on 31.7.2006 has clearly stated that relationship between the parties had soured because he had objected to frequent presence of bad elements in the shop, whereas the Civil Revision No.7366 of 2011(O&M) -6- tenant rather had filed a complaint against him (the landlord) in the police. He has also given the approximate month and year when such relationship had become acrimonious. He is categoric that when relations between the parties became strained and bitter, then the tenant stopped making payment of rent. This period comes somewhere around June/July 2004. 38. Consequently, as a sequel to the discussion as above, payment of arrears of rent from July 2004 with costs and interest paid by the tenant rules out his eviction on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent.” Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned orders or that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 30.11.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge