IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2616 of 1990 Date of decision:03.03.2009 Hari Singh Estate Educational & Charitable Trust ...Petitioner Milap Chowk, Jalandhar versus Kirat Singh Sabharwal ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: None. 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 ? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The matter has been on the board as regular case for disposal for quite some time and there is no representation for either parties when the matter is called. The revision is of the year 1990 and the order is passed on perusal of the documents. 2. The landlord's application for ejectment was sought on the ground of alleged non-payment of rent from 01.11.1973 to 31.12.1985. The petition had been filed on 21.01.1986 claiming that the arrears had accumulated for 146 months @ Rs.2,000/- per month. The landlord was to give a rebate of Rs.2,000/- per year for repairs to be carried out by the tenant and after providing for rebate for 13 years, the alleged arrears of rent was Rs.2,66,000/-. 3. The Courts below, however, considered the fact on various payments made by the tenant and receipted duly by the landlord and proved as exhibits. The order of the Appellate Authority details in Civil Revision No.2616 of 1990 - 2 - paragraph 11 the payments made by the tenant to the landlord and on reckoning so made, the Appellate Authority found that an excess amount of Rs.15,177/- had been tendered by the tenant. The Courts below also found that an amount of Rs.9,157/- paid by the tenant to the Income Tax Authorities was also to be given credit and set off against the arrears of rent if it could not be taken as gratuitous payment. The Court also adverted to the persistent petitions filed by the landlord for similar reliefs which resulted in dismissal even earlier. The petition had been dismissed by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the Appellate Authority with the clear finding returned that there were no arrears as claimed by the landlord and the ejectment sought for was not tenable. 4. There are no grounds for interference in revision in a case which has addressed all the relevant documents and evidence and arrived at finding which is essentially one of fact. 5. The Civil Revision is therefore dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 03.03.2009 sanjeev