Civil Revision No. 1095 of 2008. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 1095 of 2008. [O&M] Date of Decision: 29th July, 2009. Pawan Kumar Gupta Petitioner through Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate. Versus Surinder Kaur Respondent through Mr. Dhirender Chopra, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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? SURYA KANT, J. This Revision Petition is directed at the instance of the tenant who has been ordered to be evicted by the Rent Controller, Patiala vide his order dated 27.10.2005 from the premises comprising one room which is part of House No. 702/3 situated at Topkhana Gate, Patiala and whose appeal against the eviction order has also been dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide the judgment under challenge dated 8.12.2007. [2]. The respondent – landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short 'the Act'] against the petitioner – tenant alleging, inter-alia, that the demised premises was rented out to him @ Rs.900/- per month in June, 1993. She alleged that after paying the rent up to August, Civil Revision No. 1095 of 2008. ::-2-:: 1993, the petitioner – tenant stopped paying rent; with the intervention of various persons, the tenant paid rent for November, 2000 on 6.11.2000 and assured that he will arrange for the arrears from September, 1993 but later on refused to pay the same. A complaint was also made to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala but no action was taken by the police; that the roof of the premises is in a dilapidated condition and can fall at any time. She accordingly sought the petitioner's eviction on the grounds of [i] non- payment of arrears of rent and [ii] that the demised premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. [3]. Upon notice, the petitioner – tenant appeared and tendered arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.12.2000 to 31.5.2001 @ Rs.900/- per month along with costs and interest. That tender was accepted by the landlady under protest alleging it to be short. The petitioner – tenant, though admitted the rate of rent in June, 1993 @ Rs.900/- per month. He claimed that the rent has been paid regularly in advance, but he stopped paying the same from December, 2000 because on 6.11.2000 when he was away and the persons employed by him were making necessary repairs in the premises, the respondent – landlady along with three women and two men came to the premises and stopped the repair works. The petitioner – tenant, therefore, allegedly refused to pay the rent unless repairs were carried out. [4]. The petitioner – tenant did admit that some persons, namely, Inderjit Dhiman, Rajinder Kumar Bawa and Rakesh Kumar etc. were there in the premises on 6.11.2000 but for an altogether different purpose, namely, for the repair work. He also claimed that Civil Revision No. 1095 of 2008. ::-3-:: the respondent-landlady got him pressurized on 12.11.2000 and obtained a writing, later on relied upon by her as Ex.P1. [5]. The parties went to trial on the following issues:- “1. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent?OPP 2. Whether the premises is in dilapidated condition and unfit and unsafe for human habitation?OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable?OPR 4. Relief”. [6]. The respondent – landlady besides entering in the witness box as PW1, also examined Rahul Sharma [PW2], Veena Sharma [PW3] and produced on record the writing dated 6.11.2000 [Ex.P1]. The petitioner – tenant, on the other hand himself entered the witness box [RW1] and examined Inderjit Dhiman [RW2] and also produced on record copy of FIR [Ex.R2], report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. [Ex.R4]. [7]. Since the rate of rent i.e., Rs.900/- per month was not in dispute, the question to be resolved by the Rent Controller was as to whether the petitioner – tenant was in arrears of rent from December, 2000 onwards or from September, 1993 as claimed by the respondent – landlady? [8]. After analyzing the evidence on record, the Rent Controller found that the demised premises was being used as an office of the Shiv Sena [Bal Thakre] and the petitioner as well as Inderjit Dhiman, both are the office bearers of the said Organization. The writing [Ex.P1] is admittedly signed by Inderjit Dhiman who was found present in the premises on 6.11.2000. The Rent Controller has held that since one of the office bearers of the Organization who was Civil Revision No. 1095 of 2008. ::-4-:: in occupation of the premises has acknowledged the payment of rent up to September, 1993 only, it is beyond any one's comprehension that the petitioner would have paid the rent till November, 2000 without getting any receipt from the landlady. The Rent Controller accordingly accepted the landlady's version and held that the petitioner is in arrears of rent from September, 1993 to October, 2000, amounting to Rs.77,400/- plus interest of Rs.48,290/- and after imposing the costs of Rs.100/-, held that the petitioner is in arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.1,25,690/-. Following the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan & Ors. V M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation & Ors., [2002] 5 SCC, 440, the Rent Controller directed the petitioner – tenant to pay the arrears within three months, failing which he is liable to be evicted without any further orders. [9]. As regards Issue No. 2 as to whether the premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, the Rent Controller held that the premises is not in such a dilapidated condition that it can be declared unfit or unsafe for human habitation. [10]. The petitioner went in appeal which has also been turned down by the Appellate Authority vide the impugned judgment dated 8.12.2007 after observing as follows:- “Pawan Kumar appellant/tenant appeared as RW1 and proved his affidavit Ex.R1 but he could not rebut the consistent and plausible evidence of all the three witnesses of the landlady including her neighbourers and her son and he admitted that Inderjit Dhiman was the City President of Shiv Sena Bal Thakre and he admitted that Shri Inderjit Dhiman and Rakesh Kumar were same office Civil Revision No. 1095 of 2008. ::-5-:: bearers of their Association and their organization maintains the account of the State Level Committee and city Unit of Organization contributes financially but at the same time he deposed that he does not know if the City unit of his Organization maintains any account of income and expenditure and he admitted that Inderjit Dhiman had been keeping the keys of the property in dispute though not permanently. So in these circumstances, said Inderjit Dhiman who filed his affidavit Ex.R5 is found to be binding the appellant with the writing Ex.P1 and he admitted that when Ex.P1 was written Rakesh Kumar Secretary of the District Unit and Ex.P1 bears his signatures”. [11]. Still aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this revision petition, in which notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, learned counsel for the parties have been heard at some length and the impugned orders perused. [12]. No meaningful argument could be advanced on behalf of the petitioner to show that the monthly rent was ever paid after September, 1993. There is no plausible explanation as to how the petitioner would have continued to pay the rent in cash without taking any receipt, especially when the premises was occupied by an Organization whose accounts etc. must have been regularly maintained. The fact that the other office bearers of the Organization have acknowledged non-payment of rent coupled with the evidence led by the respondent – landlady that she received no rent after September, 1993, it stands irresistibly proved that the plea taken by the petitioner regarding payment of rent till November, 2000 is contrary to record and is not admissible. No interference in the Civil Revision No. 1095 of 2008. ::-6-:: concurrent findings of fact based upon correct appreciation of evidence on record is, therefore, called for by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. [13]. Dismissed with costs of Rs.5000/-. July 29, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE