CR No.7879 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.7879 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:25.03.2011. Naval Kishore ...Petitioner Versus Premdeep Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The landlord is in revision against the orders of the Courts below by which his eviction petition filed under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 [for short “the Act”] for seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent, has been dismissed. The learned Courts below had noticed that the only dispute involved in the present case is with regard to the rate of rent and the period of payment of rent of the demised premises (shop). The learned Rent Controller had observed that the shop was let out in the year 1985 and the landlord had received excess rent for the period w.e.f. May 2002 to December 2004, which was ordered to be adjusted alongwith interest @ 8% per annum in future rent. The petitioner/landlord had relied upon affidavit Ex.P4 executed by the respondent/tenant to prove the rate of rent of the demised premies @ `2,600/- per month, but the said affidavit has been disbelieved because the landlord has failed to prove it. He had only examined the Oath Commissioner who was not personally known to the tenant and has also admitted in his cross-examination CR No.7879 of 2010 (O&M) -2- that the tenant had not put his signatures in his presence on the affidavit. The person who had identified the affiant was one R.S.Chahar, Advocate but he was not examined and the learned Court below had drawn an adverse inference. Moreover, in the affidavit Ex.P4, which is drawn on a stamp paper, there is no reference of the name of the tenant rather RW3, who is the son of the stamp vendor, had alleged that the said stamp paper was purchased by Satbir Singh and not by Premdeep Singh (respondent/tenant) and the entries in this regard were made in the Register where Satbir Singh had signed. Moreover, the learned Appellate Authority had relied upon the documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R54 from which it is clear that the rate of rent of the demised premises in the occupation of the respondent/tenant was `1,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Courts below have erred in relying upon the entries made in the assessment register in order to determine the rate of rent. I am not impressed with the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner because the Courts below have not relied upon the entries made in the assessment register to find out the rate of rent, rather the Courts below had relied upon documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R54 as well and have strongly disbelieved the affidavit Ex.P4 which has been relied upon by the landlord. In view of the above, I do not find any error in the orders of the learned Courts below in dismissing the eviction petition filed by the landlord and hence, the revision petition is dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. March 25, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE