JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - CM No.10519-CII of 2012 Allowed as prayed for. CR No.2496 of 2012 1. Tenant Roshan Lal Kathuria, having lost before both the Authorities below, has approached this Court by way of instant revision petition filed under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short, the Act). 2. Respondent landlady Nargish Sajdeh filed ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Act against tenant-petitioner for his ejectment from demised shop situated at Amritsar. The landlady alleged that the petitioner herein was inducted as tenant in the demised shop vide license deed dated 04.10.1996 @ Rs.2645/- per month rent with increase thereof by 5% after every year. Ejectment was sought on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent as detailed in the ejectment petition. 3. The petitioner herein while admitting the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, pleaded that rate of rent is Rs.500/- per month only and not Rs.2645/- per month. Rent note dated 04.10.1996 was alleged to be false and fabricated document. The tenant-petitioner claimed to have paid the rent upto September 2004 @ Rs.500/- per month and expressed readiness and willingness to pay the further rent at the same rate. 4. Learned Rent Controller, Amritsar vide impugned order dated 03.03.2009 held the rate of rent to be Rs.2645/- and, therefore, ordered conditional ejectment of the tenant-petitioner from the demised shop, giving him two months time to pay the balance amount of arrears of rent calculated @ Rs.2645/- per month w.e.f. 01.04.2002 after deducting the tender of rent made @ Rs.500/- per month for some period before the Rent Controller. Appeal against the said order preferred by the tenant has been dismissed by Appellate Authority, Amritsar vide impugned order dated 19.01.2012. Feeling aggrieved, tenant has filed this revision petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. 6. Counsel for the petitioner contended that license deed dated 04.10.1996 was not executed by the tenant-petitioner and therefore, rate of rent is not proved to be Rs.2645/- per month. The contention cannot be accepted. Respondent-landlady has led sufficient cogent evidence to prove the execution of license deed dated 04.10.1996 vide which tenancy of the tenant-petitioner was created. Vinod Kumar AW-1 is witness of the said license deed and has proved the same. The contention cannot be accepted. Respondent-landlady has led sufficient cogent evidence to prove the execution of license deed dated 04.10.1996 vide which tenancy of the tenant-petitioner was created. Vinod Kumar AW-1 is witness of the said license deed and has proved the same. AW-2 Raj Kumar Sajdeh is husband and attorney of the landlady and he has also proved the same. On the other hand, the tenant himself appeared as RW-1 and examined his own son Gaurav Kathuria RW-2. Both of them stated according to version of the tenant. However, relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is admitted. The tenant has not produced any documentary evidence to prove that the rate of rent was Rs.500/- per month as pleaded by him. On the other hand, the landlady has produced license deed dated 04.10.1996 and also other documents including original cheques and account statement to prove that rate of rent is Rs.2645/- per month. The tenant admitted that the aforesaid license deed was entered by the deed writer in his register. He also admitted the signatures of Vinod Kumar Kathuria AW-1 on the license deed. Tenant’s son also admitted the signatures of the tenant on the cheques issued by the tenant in favour of landlady. From all this documentary evidence, it is amply established that rate of rent was Rs.2645/- per month. License deed dated 04.10.1996 has been duly proved by the landlady. By the said license deed, tenancy of the tenant-petitioner was created in the demised shop. The said document was styled as license deed but is, in fact, document of tenancy. The said document establishes the case of landlady regarding rate of rent pleaded by her. 7. There is concurrent finding by both the Authorities below that rate of rent is proved to be Rs.2645/- per month. The said finding is not shown to be suffering from vice of illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error nor the said finding is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. On the other hand, said finding is the only reasonable finding that can be arrived at on appreciation of evidence. Consequently, the said finding does not call for any interference. 8. The tenant petitioner failed to tender rent @ Rs.2645/- per month as held proved. On the other hand, said finding is the only reasonable finding that can be arrived at on appreciation of evidence. Consequently, the said finding does not call for any interference. 8. The tenant petitioner failed to tender rent @ Rs.2645/- per month as held proved. The tenant-petitioner also failed to pay balance arrears of rent in spite of period of two months granted by learned Rent Controller vide impugned order dated 03.03.2009. Consequently the tenant-petitioner has been rightly held liable to ejectment from the demised shop. There is no perversity, illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error in impugned orders of the Authorities below so as to call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 15(5) of the Act. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. ------------------