Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 20 (PNJ)

Lal Chand v. Mohan Lal

2003-01-08

S.S.NIJJAR

body2003
Judgment S.S.Nijjar, J. 1. The petitioner who is the landlord, had filed a petition for eviction of the tenant-respondent on the ground that the tenant had not paid the rent from 14.7.1978 and the house tax despite several requests and demands made by the petitioner. In the written statement, the respondent-tenant admitted that father of the petitioner was the, owner of the shop in dispute. He denied the liability to pay the house tax. The Rent Controller framed three issues which are as follows:- "1. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected from the shop in dispute? OPP 2. Whether the petitioner is the legal heir of Hira Lal. if so to what effect? OPR 3. Relief." 2. On issue No. 1, after examining the evidence the Rent Controller held that the respondent-tenant was liable to pay the house tax since the same had not been paid. Issue No.1 was decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent. The respondent-tenant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Sonepat. The appeal was allowed by the Appellate Authority on 27.3.1986. The order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller was set aside. Hence, the present revision petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 4. Ms. Sarin appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Appellate Authority has erred in law in reversing the well-reasoned findings of fact recorded by the Rent Controller. She has submitted that the Appellate Authority has given no cogent reason for reversing the findings of fact recorded by the Rent Controller. The judgment of the Appellate Authority is liable to be set aside. 5. Mr. Kapoor, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted the findings of fact recorded by the Appellate Authority are based on due appreciation of evidence. The judgment does not suffer from any perversity. Given the limited jurisdiction of this Court in revision, the findings of fact recorded by the Appellate Authority do not require to be interfered with. 6. I have anxiously considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. A perusal of paragraph 12 of the judgment of the Appellate Authority shows that the petitioner had tried to prove that the respondent, was liable to pay house tax on the basis of a notice which was allegedly sent to the respondent-tenant. 6. I have anxiously considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. A perusal of paragraph 12 of the judgment of the Appellate Authority shows that the petitioner had tried to prove that the respondent, was liable to pay house tax on the basis of a notice which was allegedly sent to the respondent-tenant. The Appellate Authority has noticed that the alleged notice which is said to have been sent on 28.4.1978, is not proved by the receipt issued by the postal authority. In fact, in the postal stamp the date is 28.4.1979. The A.D. receipt was also not produced in Court. It is also to be noticed that the first reference to the alleged notice was made on 27.1.1984 when it was produced before the Rent Controller. Having considered the entire matter, the Appellate Authority came to a further conclusion that since the notice had not been sent through an Advocate, its origin becomes doubtful. Normally, according to the Appellate Authority, such kind of notices are sent through the Advocate. Be that as it may be, I am of the considered opinion that there is sufficient material on the record to sup port the findings of fact recorded by me Appellate Authority. I am further of the opinion that the judgment of the Appellate Authority does not suffer from any material irregularity. No manifest injustice has been done to the petitioner. In view of the above, this revision petition is dismissed.