Civil Revision No. 2796 of 1988 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Civil Revision No. 2796 of 1988 Date of decision : 15.2.2010 Jain Charitable (free) Eye Hospital, Jind ....Petitioner Versus Kharati Lal ...Respondent 2. Civil Revision No. 2797 of 1988 Jain Charitable (free) Eye Hospital, Jind ....Petitioner Versus Kharati Lal ...Respondent 3. Civil Revision No. 1109 of 1990 Jain Charitable (free) Eye Hospital, Jind ....Petitioner Versus Kharati Lal ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. R.K.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. These three petitions have an element of conceded commonness on point of controversy. The tenants (hereinafter referred to Civil Revision No. 2796 of 1988 -2- **** as 'the respondents') are in occupation of tenanted premises under the same landlord i.e. the petitioner. The petitioner applied for ejectment of the respondents to these petitions on a plea of non payment of rent. The averment, in the context, was that rent was payable at the rate of Rs.600/- per month in terms of a documented rent agreement (Ex. A-1). The plea raised by the respondent was that rent payable was at the rate of Rs.300/- per month. Qua the execution of rent note Ex. A-1, the averment made was that the signatures of the respondent had been obtained upon a blank stamp paper on a presentation that those (blank stamp papers) had been handed over to the petitioner “for getting the rent note executed at the rate of Rs.300/- per month”. Qua house tax, the averment made by the petitioner was that it was payable in addition to the rent at the rate of Rs.600/- per month whereas the presentation on behalf of the respondents was that the amount of Rs.300/- per month the house tax.. Learned Rent Controller, placed implicit reliance upon the contents of rent note Ex. A-1 and recorded a finding that the rent was payable at the agreed amount of Rs.600/- per month. In obtaining that view, the learned Rent Controller negatived the plea raised on behalf of the respondent that their signatures had been obtained on blank stamp papers on the averred presentation. As rent was not tendered at that rate, the respondents were ordered to be ejected from the (respective portions of) tenanted premises. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority recorded a finding that the petitioner having withheld the account-books, had not been able to rebut the plea on behalf of respondent that rent was payable at the rate of Rs.300/- per month. Civil Revision No. 2796 of 1988 -3- **** The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that the mere non production of the account-books could not be termed sufficient to set at naught the contents of rent note Ex. A-1 particularly when the respondents had not been able to adduce any acceptable evidence to wriggle out of the contents thereof. The plea was resisted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent who argued that there is no reason why the petitioner trust should have refrained from presenting its account-books. It was argued that the non production of the account-books would justify the drawal of an inference that, if produced, the entries therein would have falsified the plea on behalf of the petitioner. The plea raised on behalf of the petitioner ( in all these three petitions) deserves to be accepted. The reasons therefor are as under:- The execution of the rent note was duly proved by AW-1 Sh.K.K.Mittal, AW-1, a son of deceased Deed Writer who had scribed the documents aforementioned. AW-1 Sh. K.K.Mittal claimed familiarity with the hand writing and signatures of his deceased father and testified that the rent note bears the signature of his father. He also proved that the relevant entry in the deed writer's register was also in the hand of his deceased father. The execution of the rent note was also proved by statement of AW-2 Sh. Satpal Sharma who had attested it. It may be noticed, in the context, that even the respondent did not dispute that the relevant rent notes bear their signatures. Though RW-1 Kharati Lal respondent denied having been to the seat of the Deed Writer or having signed a rent note, the fact of execution of rent note proved by AW-1 Sh. K.K.Mittal and AW-2 Sh. Satpal Sharma cannot be wished away by the respondents particularly when it was nowhere put either to AW-1 Civil Revision No. 2796 of 1988 -4- **** Sh.K.K.Mittal or AW-2 Sh. Satpal Sharma that the signatures of respondents thereupon had been obtained on blank stamp papers which were allegedly converted into rent notes. If the petitioner is open to the charge of having refrained from producing its account-books, the respondents too are open to that allegation. The respondents are running their individual businesses in the tenanted premises and it in evidence that they have been maintaining accounts books in respect of business being run by them. Both the parties, thus, are on equal footing insofar as the non production of the account-books is concerned. In the light of the contents of the rent note, the non production of the account-books by the petitioner ceases to have any significance. Insofar as the municipal (house tax assessment) record is concerned, no presumption of correctness can be attached thereto. Though those entries record that the rent (of the tenanted premises) was payable at the rate of Rs.300/- per month, it cannot be wished away that these entries are made by the municipal officials on the basis of whatever intimated to them by whosoever is found to be available available at a particular house. In this case, the house tax assessment record entries were proved by the statement of AW-5 Subhash Chander. On his own showing, it is the not that witness who had conducted the survey for the purpose of assessment of house tax. It is in his statement that survey had been conducted by an Inspector who was not examined at the trial. The present is, thus, a case wherein the terms and conditions of the rent agreements had been duly documented in the form of rent notes. The execution thereof has been proved by the testimony on oath of the son of the deceased Deed Writer and also an attesting witness, besides the Civil Revision No. 2796 of 1988 -5- **** statement made by handwriting and finger print expert Sh. Yash Pal Jain who entered the witness box as AW-4. The respondents have not been able to prove the plea that their signatures etc. had been obtained on blank stamp paper on an averment that the rate of rent would be got recorded at the rate of Rs.300/- per month. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petitions shall stand allowed. The impugned order granted by the learned Appellate Authority shall stand set aside. The order granted by the learned Rent Controller shall stand restored. The respondents herein (each one of them) shall have two months time from today to vacate the premises aforementioned. February 15, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE