CR No. 5635 of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 5635 of 2003 (O&M) Date of decision : 8.9.2011 ... Hardeep Singh ................Petitioner vs. Vijay Kumar .................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. Rajinder Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Sh. Rishu Mahajan, Advocate for the respondent. ... K.C. Puri, J. Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 28.7.2003 passed by Sh. S.K. Garg, Appellate Authority, Amritsar and order dated 24.9.2001 passed by Sh. S.P. Sood, Rent Controller, Amritsar, by the landlord. The landlord filed eviction petition on the ground that rent w.e.f. 1.11.1997 till filing of the eviction petition has not been paid alongwith house tax. The respondent has taken the plea that rent has already been deposited before the Court. Learned Rent Controller, after going through the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:- 1. Whether respondent is in arrears of rent? OPA 2. Whether respondent is liable to pay house tax at the rate of 5% as alleged? OPA 3. Relief. CR No. 5635 of 2003 -2- After appraisal of the evidence, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that rent has already been deposited and the tenant is not liable to pay the house tax as there is no recital regarding the payment of house tax. Feeling dissatisfied with the order dated 24.9.2001 passed by Sh.S.P. Sood, Rent Controller, Amritsar, the landlord filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. That appeal was dismissed vide order dated 28.7.2003 passed by Sh. S.K. Garg, Appellate Authority, Amritsar, affirming the finding of the Rent Controller. Feeling dissatisfied with the orders dated 28.7.2003 and 24.9.2001, referred to above, the present revision petition has been filed. I have heard counsel for the parties and have also gone through the file of the case. Both the Courts below have given a concurrent finding that rent has already been deposited in the Court and landlord is not entitled to claim the house tax. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not assail the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below. The record shows that rent has already been deposited. The ground for eviction was only non-payment of rent and house tax. So, in these circumstances, the revision petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. ( K.C. Puri ) 8.9.2011 Judge chugh