Judgment Vinod K.Sharma, J. 1. The respondent-landlord had filed a petition for ejectment under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 seeking eviction of the petitioner herein on account of non-payment of rent. 2. The respondent-landlord claimed that the shop in dispute was rented out to the petitioner at a monthly rent of Rs. 700/- and that he had been issuing regular receipts on the note book maintained by the petitioner herein. It was claimed that the petitioner-tenant had failed to make the payment of rent since 1.5.1996. Though the claim was also made for personal bona fide need and on the ground of nuisance as well as damage to the property. However, these grounds were rejected by the Rent Controller. 3. The claim was contested by the petitioner-tenant wherein he claimed that the monthly rent of the premises was Rs. 150/- per month and not Rs. 700/- per month, as alleged. It was also asserted that no receipts were being issued. The tenant-petitioner claimed that rent up to 30.11.1998 stood paid and it was claimed that the house-tax was to be paid by the landlord. However, on his failure the same had to be deposited by the tenant-petitioner. However, on the first date of hearing he tendered the rent at the rate of Rs. 700/- and reserved his right to recover the excess amount paid. 4. The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the rate of rent was Rs. 150/- per month and not Rs. 700/- per month. It was further held that the petitioner had paid excess rent in the Court on 23.4.1999. However, it was claimed that he had not affixed the court-fee by way of counter claim. No order could be passed as the written statement could not be treated to be a counter claim. However, it was observed that the excess amount could be adjusted towards future rent. 5. The respondent-landlord filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, wherein it was held that though no documentary evidence was produced regarding the rate of rent, the landlord-respondent had produced witnesses from the locality showing that the rate of rent was Rs. 700/- per month. Said evidence was believed as they were held to be independent witnesses from the locality having no personal grudge or interest against either of the parties. 700/- per month. Said evidence was believed as they were held to be independent witnesses from the locality having no personal grudge or interest against either of the parties. Therefore by relying upon the evidence led by the respondent-landlord, the learned Appellate Authority was pleased to hold that the rate of rent was Rs. 700/- per month. The learned Appellate Authority, however, confirmed the findings of the learned Rent Controller regarding personal need, impairing the value of the shop and regarding the creating of nuisance. Thus, disposed of the appeal by holding that the tender made was valid and therefore, no eviction could be ordered. Learned Appellate Court only modified the findings regarding rate of rent. 6. Mr. Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned Appellate Authority erred in law in reversing the findings of the learned Rent Controller qua the rate of rent even though the landlord- respondent had failed to discharge the onus placed on him. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that no receipts or documentary evidence was placed on record and therefore, the findings cannot be sustained. It was also contended that the house-tax register placed on record as Ex. R-1 and R-2 really showed that the rate of rent was Rs. 150/- per month and therefore, there was no occasion for the learned Appellate Authority to reverse the findings of the learned Rent Controller. 7. I have heard Shri Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.C. Kapoor, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajnish Chandwal, learned counsel for the respondent and find that there is no force in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is the settled law that the assessment register of house-tax cannot be a ground for assessment of the rent. 8. In the present case, besides the evidence of respondent-landlord he had produced independent witnesses from the locality in support of his case wherein it was clearly stated that the rate of rent was Rs. 700/- per month which was paid by the tenant in their presence. The learned Appellate Authority therefore, rightly believed the evidence and reversed the finding of the learned trial Court. 9. There is no illegality in the impugned order which may call for interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed.