Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 4453 (PNJ)

Bharat Pal Singh v. Jasbir Kaur Johal

2006-12-06

ARVIND KUMAR

body2006
Judgment Arvind Kumar, J. 1. This is tenants revision directed against judgment dated 13.12.1999 passed by the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh whereby he has been ordered to be ejected on the ground of non-payment of rent. 2. Rent Controller vide judgment dated 2.11.1998 dismissed the eviction application dated 9.6.1994, claiming arrears of rent of 38 months, filed by landlady, namely, Jasbir Kaur (GPA of her husband Mohinder Singh-co-owner) against her tenant (petitioner herein), holding the rate of rent of the demised premises at Rs. 2000/- and further holding that the tenant had made the payment of rent before filing of the rent petition by the landlady at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month and therefore, no rent was due on the first date of hearing, as claimed by the landlady. Feeling aggrieved, the landlady preferred an appeal. The Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, on reappreciation of the evidence led by the parties to the lis, allowed the appeal of the landlady after setting aside judgment dated 2.11.1998 passed by Rent Controller, Chandigarh, on the ground of non-payment of rent for 38 months at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month and resultantly, directed the tenant to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlady within three months. Hence, the present revision petition by the tenant. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. The first contention that has been raised is that two subsequent petitions dated 8.4.1995 and 13.11.1997 claiming arrears of rent of the subsequent period and were subsequently withdrawn after the tender of rent, from which an inference can be drawn that no rent is due from the appellant-tenant of the period in issue which is earlier thereto. The argument is not convincing for variety of reasons; firstly, a bare perusal of the case file shows that the afore-stated subsequent petitions had been withdrawn without prejudice to her rights in the pending present petition; secondly, mere withdrawal of the subsequent petitions upon tender of rent does not lead to the conclusion that the landlady gave up her claim of eviction in the earlier eviction petition. In Devi Darshan Singh Bali v. Lal Chand, 1988 (1968) Current Law Journal 943, the landlord did file second petition on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent during the pendency of the first eviction application but the second eviction application did not cover the period of arrears as covered by the first eviction application. It was held that even if the tenant made any payment which the landlord has accepted, that would not mean that the landlord gave up his claim on the first eviction application. 5. The next argument of the counsel that the claim of the respondent-landlady with regard to rate of rent at the rate of Rs. 7000/- per month has been disbelieved by both the courts below and as such, her claim of the arrears of rent of the period in issue, is again not tenable. The mere fact that the evidence produced by the respondent-landlady has been disbelieved in respect of the rate of rent, would not be sufficient to disbelieve her concerning non-payment of rent of the period in issue. Emphasis is from Prem Kaur v. Ajit Kaur, 1995(1) RCR(Rent) 444 : (1995-2)110 PLR 66. Further, the appellant- tenant on one hand has disputed the right of landlady, Jasbir Kaur (wife of Mohinder Singh and stated to be missing) to receive the rent and on the other hand taking up the plea that the rent in question had already been paid to her through her son and thus, has taken two contradictory pleas. Therefore, it has rightly been observed by the appellate Authority that such contradictory pleas are liable to be rejected. However, counsel for the appellant-tenant has mainly argued that vide cheque, Exhibit R-6 (Exhibit R-1) dated 10.8.1994, a sum of Rs. 2000/- was paid on account of rent for the month of August, 1994, to Gurpreet Singh who is admittedly the son of Jasbir Kaur, the landlady, and as such they are not in arrears of rent at all. There is no dispute that Gurpreet Singh son of the landlady, had encashed the said cheque but their stand is that he was asked by Minna Singh (wife of Bharat Pal Singh) to bring the money of the said cheque which was `self and he after withdrawing the money from the bank, handed over the same to Minna Singh. 6. There is no dispute that Gurpreet Singh son of the landlady, had encashed the said cheque but their stand is that he was asked by Minna Singh (wife of Bharat Pal Singh) to bring the money of the said cheque which was `self and he after withdrawing the money from the bank, handed over the same to Minna Singh. 6. The only controversy left is whether the afore-stated cheque Exhibit R-6 (Exhibit R-1) dated 10.8.1994 was towards the payment of rent or mere withdrawal by Minna Singh through Gurpreet Singh son of the landlady. The said cheque cannot be treated as a payment towards rent in issue, otherwise the same should have been an amount payee and in the name of Jasbir Kaur, the landlady, and by no stretch of imagination it would be `self cheque having also been signed by Minna Singh on its back as token of having been encashed for herself from the bank. In backdrop of these facts, the appellate Authority has rightly given a finding that "it appears that she herself did not go to the bank and handed over the cheque to Gurmit Singh who went to the bank and brought the money for her. As a token of having received the money at the counter of the bank, he too signed on the back of the cheque." This Court is also in concurrence with the finding of the appellate Authority that the fact that the cheque was issued in the name of `self and Minna Singh had also signed on its back, shows that Minna Singh is the real and legal recipient of the amount from the bank; though, the money in fact was brought by Gurpreet Singh. There is nothing to suggest that Jasbir Kaur, the landlady, at any point of time had authorised her son Gurpreet Singh to receive the amount of rent and the appellant authority has rightly held that the payment of cheque cannot be attributed to Jasbir Kaur, the landlady. Further, a perusal of the impugned judgment of the appellate Authority also suggests that the appellate Authority has adequately dealt each and every point so raised by the tenant, requiring no interference. 7. In view of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, there is no infirmity in the judgment rendered by the appellate Authority warranting any interference whatsoever. Further, a perusal of the impugned judgment of the appellate Authority also suggests that the appellate Authority has adequately dealt each and every point so raised by the tenant, requiring no interference. 7. In view of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, there is no infirmity in the judgment rendered by the appellate Authority warranting any interference whatsoever. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Appellant tenant is allowed two months time to vacate the premises in dispute.