JUDGMENT
V.M. Jain, J.
1. This revision petition has been filed by the landlord against the orders passed by the courts below whereby the ejectment petition filed by the landlord was dismissed by the Rent Controller and the appeal: filed by him was dismissed by the learned appellate authority.
2. Facts in brief are that Dr. Sukhdev Singh Chaudhary (landlord) filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, against the respondent tenant, seeking his ejectment from the shop in dispute, inter alia on the ground of non-payment of rent, impairing the value and utility of the premises, change of user and nuisance. It was alleged that the rate of rent was Rs. 300/- per month and that the tenant was in arrears of rent w.e.f. March 1976 and that he had impaired the value and utility of the demised premises and had changed user of the shop in dispute, i.e. now he was running the Karyana shop instead of office for the supply of hand tools, for which purpose the shop was let out and that the tenant was a source of nuisance to the landlord and other occupiers of the buildings in the neighbourhood.
3. The petition was contested by the respondent tenant, by filing written statement. It was denied that the rate of rent was Rs. 300/- per month. On the other hand, it was pleaded that rate of rent was Rs. 150/- per month and that the tenant had already paid arrears of rent upto November, 1981 and had tendered the arrears of rent for the month of December, 1981 alongwith interest and cost. It was denied that he had impaired the value and utility of the shop in question or had changed the user of the shop or had created nuisance.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, various issues were framed. After hearing both sides, learned Rent Controller found that rate of rent was Rs. 150/- per month, as alleged by the tenant, who had already paid arrears of rent from March, 1976 till 30.11.1981 and had tendered the arrears of rent for the month of December, 1981, alongwith interest and cost, and as such, tenant was not liable to be evicted from the shop in question, on the ground of non-payment of rent. It was further held that the tenant had not changed the user of the shop, because it was not proved as to for what specific purpose the shop in question was let out. It was also held that the landlord had failed to prove that the respondent had created nuisance. Resultantly, the ejectment petition was dismissed. Appeal filed by the landlord was dismissed by the learned appellate authority, upholding the findings of the Rent Controller. Aggrieved against the same, landlord has filed the present revision petition in this court.
5. Since the revision petition was filed through Sh. Krishan Lal Verma, Advocate, Jalandhar, on the last date of hearing, it was directed that the actual date notice be issued to the petitioner Dr. Sukhdev Singh Chaudhary, as also his counsel Sh. Krishan Lal Verma, Advocate, Jalandhar, for today. It was further directed that actual date notice to Kirpal Singh, respondent, be also issued, as he was not represented by a counsel. Office has reported that actual date notice issued to Dr. Sukhdev Singh Chaudhary (landlord) has not been received back, served or otherwise, whereas Kirpal Singh, respondent, had refused to accept the same and it was served through affixation. With regard to Sh. Krishan Lal Verma, Advocate, Jalandhar, it was reported that he was not found in the Bar Room. In my opinion, actual date notice having been issued to the petitioner. Similarly, respondent having refused to accept the notice and having been served through affixation, service of the respondent is also complete.
6. I have gone through the record, including the grounds of revision petition filed by the petitioner.
7. As referred to above, both the courts below had found that the landlord had failed to prove his case, for the ejectment of the respondent tenant from the shop in question. Landlord had taken various grounds seeking ejectment of the tenant from the shop in question. However, at the appeal stage before the appellate authority, the learned counsel appearing for the landlord had challenged the findings of the Rent Controller only on issues No. 4, 4-A and 4-B, in respect of rate of rent and payment of arrears of rent from March, 1976 to 30.11.1981. Thus, the only question to be determined by this court, in the present revision petition, is as to what was the rate of rent and whether the respondent tenant had paid the rent from March, 1976 to 30.11.1981.
8. There is nothing to indicate that any rent note was executed by the tenant in favour of the landlord, nor there is any rent deed available on the record. Landlord had claimed that the rate of rent was Rs. 300/- per month, whereas the tenant had alleged that the rate of rent was Rs. 150/- p.m. Learned Rent Controller, as also the learned appellate authority, after considering the evidence of Dr. Sukhdev Singh Chaudhary (landlord) and his witnesses AW4 Mohinder Singh and AW5 Sohan Singh, on behalf of the landlord, had found that the landlord had failed to prove that the rate of rent was Rs. 300/-p.m. On the other hand, both the courts below had found, on the basis of evidence led by the respondent tenant, that the rate of rent was Rs. 150/- p.m. Reliance was placed on the House Tax Assessment Register, Ex.RW3/A, wherein respondent was shown to be in possession of the shop in question as a tenant, on the monthly rent of Rs. 150/- under the revision petitioner. AW2 Smt. Varinder Kaur, Clerk, who had proved the House Tax Assessment Register, had categorically stated that the rate of rent, recorded in the said register, was Rs. 150/- p.m. Furthermore, it was found by the appellate authority that the appellant, during cross examination, had admitted that Sh. J.P. Joshi, proprietor of Janta Tent House, was also his tenant in another shop @ Rs. 70/- p.m. and even in the House Tax Assessment Register, copy Ex.RW3/A, rate of rent in respect of the said shop was also mentioned as Rs. 70/- per month. It was found that the rate of rent mentioned in the House Tax Register was thus correctly recorded and as such it was found that the rate of rent was Rs. 150/- p.m., in respect of the shop in question. Even Kirpal Singh, tenant, had categorically stated that rate of rent was Rs. 150/- pm. In my opinion, both the courts below had rightly found that the rate of rent was Rs. 150/- p.m., as claimed by the tenant and was not Rs. 300/- p.m. as claimed by the landlord.
9. With regard to the payment of arrears of rent from March, 1976 upto 30.11.1981, it was found by the courts below that no reliance whatsoever, could be placed on the evidence led by the landlord, with regard to the arrears of rent, especially when he has been found to be a liar in respect of rate of rent. It was found that the bald testimony of the landlord that tenant was in arrears of rent since March, 1976 till 30.11.1981, could not be accepted, especially when the landlord had made a false statement with regard to the rate of rent. It was also found that it was not possible to believe that the landlord would wait for 5-1/2 years for filing the ejectment petition on the ground of non-payment of rent, claiming arrears of rent from March 1976 till December 1981 and as such, evidence led by the tenant, respondent, that he had paid arrears of rent upto 30.11.1981, had to be accepted. In my opinion, the reasoning adopted by the courts below is perfectly in accordance with law and on the facts and circumstances of the present case, it stands fully proved on the record that the tenant had paid arrears of rent upto November, 1981 and with regard to the month of December, 1981, he had tendered the arrears of rent within the stipulated period. The authority Smt. Chand Rani v. Amar Nath, 1985(1) Rent Law Reporter 101, cited on behalf of the petitioner at the time of motion hearing, in my opinion, would be of no help to the petitioner landlord, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is no doubt true that it is for the tenant to prove that he is not in arrears of rent. However, in the present case, tenant had categorically stated that he had paid arrears of rent till 30.11.1981 @ Rs. 150/- per month. The evidence led by the landlord that the tenant had not paid arrears of rent since March, 1976, could not be relied upon, considering that the landlord had not come to the court with clean hands and had made a false statement by claiming that the rate of rent was Rs. 300A per month, even though it was fund that it was Rs. 150/- p.m. In my opinion, on the facts and circumstances of the present case, it could not be said that the tenant was in arrears of rent or that he was required to be evicted from the shop in question on the ground of non-payment of rent. Accordingly, I affirm findings on issues No. 4, 4-A and 4-B.
10. In view of the above, finding no merit in this revision petition, the same is
hereby dismissed.