JUDGMENT
S.K. Jain, J.
1. Harbans Lal landlord filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act on August 22. 1985 for the eviction of his tenant Siri Ram Mehta from a house situated in Gandhi Nagar, Pathankot (hereinafter referred to as the demise premises), on the ground of non payment of arrears of rent and house tax. On the Ist date of hearing the tenant tendered arrears of rent as claimed by the landlord alongwith interest and cost as allowed by the Rent Controller. But, he tendered no amount on account of house tax.
2. In reply to para No. 2 (b) of the petition, the tenant vide his written reply filed on 1-10-1985 took the following stand : –
(b) “In reply to sub para (b) of the application, it is submitted that the applicant is not entitled to receive any lease tax from the respondent. The applicant has not given any valid notice to the respondent for claiming the house tax in accordance with law nor he has stated as to for what period he is demanding Rs. 60/-as such the applicant is not entitled to the amount claimed as house tax.”
The parties fought the litigation on the following issues :-
“(i) Whether respondent is liable to be ejected from the demised premises on the ground of non payment of house tax.”
The Rent Controller vide his order dated July 27, 1987 returned finding on the above issues in favour of the applicant and ordered ejectment of the tenant from the demised premises.
Feeling aggrieved, the tenant preferred Rent Appeal No. 17 of 1987 which was dismissed by Mr. A.S. Sodhi, Appellate Authority, Gurdaspur vide his judgment of May 19, 1983.
The tenant feeling aggrieved from the said judgment has challenged the same before this Court in the Revision Petition.
3. Shri Bedi, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued; firstly, that the operation of Section 9(1) of the Act is not automatic and the landlord would be entitled to claim arrears of house tax only if he had served notice on the tenant claiming it Secondly, he has submitted that the pleading with to the payment of house tax contained in the application under Section 13 of the Act was vague.
4. In order to satisfy myself as to whether the findings of the courts below on the above said point was based on evidence or not, I have surgically examined oral and documentary evidence on record.
5. Perusal of the application under Section 13 of the Act would show that para No. 2 (b) thereof reads as under : –
“that the respondent has not paid the house tax for the last 2 years upto 1986 amounting to Rs. 60/-.”
Above said averment clearly shows that the landlord claimed a specific amount as arrears of house tax a particular period and hence there is no ambiguity in the pleadings.
6. Now on to the first argument. Combined reading of the statement of Kulbhushan Rai (AW 2) copy of notice dated 5 10-1983 (A-5), postal receipt exhibit A-4 and copy of letter dated 18-3-1981 exhibit RW1/A would go to show that the landlord had served a notice on the tenant in the year 1981 claiming house tax. Then he had filed an application for ejectment on 9-2-1981 copy whereof was exhibited A. 2. Examination of the said copy Exhibit A 2 would show that in para No. 2(b) thereof the landlord had claimed house tax right from the year 1975 amounting to Rs. 432/-. During the proceedings under that application, the tenant had made the following statement at the bar while tendering the arrears of rent etc., : –
“I tendered Rs. 50/ as rent for the month of January 1981, Rs. 5/- as interest and Rs. 75/- as house tax for the year 1980-81, Rs. 15/- as cost.”
This statement was recorded by the Rent Controller in those proceedings on 25-2-1981. Certified copy thereof is exhibited A 3 on the record.
7. Above said statement made by the tenant clearly shoves that the tenant had been notified about the imposition of the house tax and he had paid the house tax for the year 1980-81. It is not the case of the petitioner here that each time, the landlord is required to serve notice on the tenant claiming house tax. It is not also the case that the house tax was withdrawn by the M. C after the year 1981. The tenant himself stepped into the witness box as RW 1.
Notice dated 5-10-1983 Exhibit A 5 was put to him in his cross-examination. He could not deny the receipt thereof. He had merely shown his ignorance about the same. This statement of tenant had rightly been ignored by the lower Courts in view of the positive and specific statement of Kulbhushan Rai (AW 2). It is not the case of the tenant that the house tax had not paid by the landlord. Other-wise also tax Clerk, Jaswant Rai (AW 1) had deposed that house tax @ Rs. 64/-per annum had been imposed on the property in question and that had been paid up-to-date.
8. In view of the above scrutiny of the evidence, I find that the finding of fact recorded by the Courts below are supportable on the evidence on record. In revision this Court will not embark upon independent re-assessment of the evidence and to supplant a conclusion of its own, so long as the evidence on record is admitted and supported the one reached by the Court below. Therefore, in the-instant case concurrent findings as to the liability of the tenant to pay house tax and his having not paid the same was not amenable to-reversal in revision by this Court.
9. In holding the above view, reliance is placed on Smt. Rajbir Kaur and Anr. v. M/S. S. Chokoriri and Co., A. I. R. 1988 S. C. 1145. The said judgment has aaain been followed by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court in K. A. Anthappai v. C. Ahammed J. T. 1992 (4) S. C. 65, while holding that the revisional Court must be reluctant to embark upon an independent re-assessment of the evidence and to supplant a conclusion of its own, so long as the evidence on record admitted and supported the one reached by the Courts below.
10. In view of the above discussion, no fault can be found with the impugned judgment which is affirmed. Consequently, this petition: fails and is dismissed.
11. No order as to costs.