Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 158 (PNJ)

Bishan Singh v. Om Parkash

2003-01-29

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2003
Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. Bishan Singh (hereinafter referred to as the landlord) has filed the instant revision petition against the orders passed by both the Courts below, vide which the application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, filed by him against the respondent Om Parkash (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been dismissed. The landlord filed the ejectment application for eviction of the tenant from the demised premises, which is a shop, on the ground of non-payment of rent and on the ground that the tenant has impaired the value utility of the premises by damaging its floor. According to the landlord, the demised premises was rented out to the tenant at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month. Whereas the tenant alleged that the rate of rent of the demised premises is Rs. 75/- per month. After appearing before the learned Rent Controller, the tenant, on the first date of hearing, tendered the arrears of rent @ Rs. 75/- per month and contested the claim of the landlord that the rate of rent is Rs. 200/- per month. The learned Rent Controller, after considering and appreciating the evidence led by both the parties, held that the landlord has failed to prove the ground of impairing the value and utility of the demised premises by the tenant. Regarding rate of rent, it was held that the monthly rent of the demised premises was Rs. 75/- and the claim put forth by the landlord regarding the monthly rent of Rs. 200/- was found false. After recording these findings, the ejectment application filed by the landlord was dismissed. The learned Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal of the landlord and confirmed the aforesaid finding of the learned Rent Controller. Feeling aggrieved against the order passed by both the Courts below, the landlord has filed the present revision petition. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records of the case. 3. Admittedly, the tenancy was created orally. There is no rent note. It is not mentioned in the pleadings by the landlord as to when the shop was let out by him to the tenant. It is, however, the case of the landlord that initially the rate of rent was Rs. 75/-per month, which was subsequently increased to Rs. 200/- per month. There is no rent note. It is not mentioned in the pleadings by the landlord as to when the shop was let out by him to the tenant. It is, however, the case of the landlord that initially the rate of rent was Rs. 75/-per month, which was subsequently increased to Rs. 200/- per month. The Courts below have held that only on the basis of the solitary statement of the landlord, it cannot be held that the rate of rent was increased from Rs. 75/- to Rs. 200/- in the year 1979 in a settlement which was arrived at in presence of one Girdhari Lal. The said Girdhari Lal was not produced as a witness by the landlord. On the other had, the tenant has appeared in the witness box and stated that the rate of rent was Rs. 75/- per month and it was never increased to Rs. 200/-. He proved on record Ex.R1 and Ex.R2, the entries from the house tax assessment register of the Municipal Committee for the years 1978-79 and 1982-83. These documents also reflect the monthly rent of the demised premises as Rs. 75/-. Both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact regarding the rate of rent. 4. Learned counsel for the landlord raised two submissions. Firstly, he submitted that the tenant did not produce any rent receipt and secondly that the Municipal Committee issued, notice to the landlord for the increase of the annual rental value of the shop for the purpose of increasing the house tax, from which it can be gathered that the monthly rent of the shop cannot be Rs. 75/-. In my opinion, there is no force in both these arguments of learned counsel for the landlord. Both the Courts below after appreciating the evidence brought on record by the parties, have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the monthly rent of the demised premises is Rs. 75/-. Learned counsel for the landlord could not point out any illegality or perversity in the said findings. Since both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact, the same cannot be interfered in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 75/-. Learned counsel for the landlord could not point out any illegality or perversity in the said findings. Since both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact, the same cannot be interfered in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. In Hiralal Kapur v. Prabhu Choudhury, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 852, the Honble Supreme Court has held that it is well established that the power of revision under the Act (Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958) does not entitle the High Court to enter into the merits of the factual controversies between the parties and to reverse the findings of fact in this regard. Similarly, in Rafat Ali v. Sugni Bai and Ors., 1999(1) S.C.C. 133, the Honble Supreme Court has held that it is not open to the High Court to substitute the findings of the lower Courts with its own findings while exercising limited supervisory jurisdiction when fact finding Courts had recorded a finding of fact. 5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.