Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 318 (HP)

SUKHVINDER SINGH v. JASPAL SINGH

2013-04-17

KULDIP SINGH

body2013
JUDGEMENT KULDIP SINGH, J. 1. THIS revision is directed against the judgment dated 05.08.2004 passed by learned Appellate Authority in Rent Appeal No. 4 of 2002 affirming judgment dated 31.08.2002 passed by learned Rent Controller, Court No. III, Mandi, in Rent Petition No.10-II of 1995. 2. THE facts, in brief, are that the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short Act) against respondent for ejectment from the premises, more specifically described in the petition, on the grounds that the premises was rented out to respondent on rent of Rs.1,000/- per month. The respondent is irregular in payment of rent, he has not paid rent from January, 1992 onwards. The respondent has ceased to occupy premises for a continuous period of 12 months without reasonable cause. The petition was contested by respondent by filing reply. It has been stated that respondent is running business in the premises under the name and style Paras Ram Kanwar and Company and rent receipts were also issued in the name of the firm. It has been admitted that petitioner has purchased the premises. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was admitted. The respondent pleaded rent Rs.250/- per month instead of Rs. 1,000/- claimed by petitioner. The petitioner demanded enhanced rent and refused to take rent from January, 1993 onwards. It has been denied that respondent ceased to occupy the premises for a continuous period of 12 months. 3. ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether the respondent has failed to occupy the disputed premises for the period of 12 months without reasonable cause? OPP. 3. Whether the petitioner is estopped to file the present petition? OPR. 4. Relief. The issue No.1 was partly answered in affirmative and issues No.2 and 3 in negative. The petition was allowed on 31.08.2002 on the ground of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.250/- per month from November, 1992 onwards. It was directed that respondent shall not be evicted if he pays arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.250/- per month from November, 1992, till the date of order together with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum within 30 days from the date of order. It was directed that respondent shall not be evicted if he pays arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.250/- per month from November, 1992, till the date of order together with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum within 30 days from the date of order. The appeal filed by petitioner was dismissed on 05.08.2004, hence revision. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Rent Controller and learned Appellate Authority have misconstrued and misinterpreted the evidence. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment. The petition was filed on the grounds of arrears of rent and ceased to occupy. The petition has been allowed only on the ground of arrears of rent. In the petition rent has been claimed at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- from January, 1992 to July, 1995 amounting to Rs. 43,000/-. In the reply, the respondent has pleaded rent at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month and not Rs. 1,000/- per month as claimed by petitioner. It has been stated that petitioner in the month of January, 1993, refused to take rent from the respondent and demanded unreasonable enhanced rent. It has been denied that respondent is in arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 43,000/-. The rent petition was filed on 29.08.1995. The dispute of rate of rent apart, but it clearly emerges from the reply of the respondent that respondent has not paid the rent from January, 1993 onwards on the ground that petitioner refused to take rent from respondent, even though the respondent was ready and willing to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month. 5. PW -1 Sukhvinder Singh in his statement has stated that respondent has not paid rent since January, 1992 at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month. RW-1 P.L. Sharma, Officer, Canara Bank, Mandi, has proved copies of cheques Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 issued in the name of Sukhvinder Singh by Paras Kanwar. He has also proved statement of account Ex.R6 of M/s Paras Kanwar and passbook Ex.R7. RW-2 Jaspal Singh has stated that receipts Ex.RW2/A to Ex. RW2/G were issued by petitioner. He had paid rent till January, 1993 at the rate of Rs.250/- per month. Cheques Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 were issued by him. He has also proved statement of account Ex.R6 of M/s Paras Kanwar and passbook Ex.R7. RW-2 Jaspal Singh has stated that receipts Ex.RW2/A to Ex. RW2/G were issued by petitioner. He had paid rent till January, 1993 at the rate of Rs.250/- per month. Cheques Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 were issued by him. Passbook Ex.R7 was issued by the bank to him. RW-3 Rajesh Tandon, Manager, Bank of India, Mandi, has proved statement of account Ex.RW3/A of Sukhvinder Singh. He has stated that cheques Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 were issued by Jaspal Singh and were deposited in the account of Sukhvinder Singh. 6. PW-1 has vaguely stated that at the time of filing the petition the shop was closed for one year. He has not given any specific period when shop remained closed. PW-2 has not stated anything regarding the closure of shop for any length of time. RW-2 has stated that he alone runs the shop and it remains closed for two days in a week. The petitioner has not proved any electricity bill of the shop to show that shop remained closed for one year nor he examined any witness from locality to prove that shop remained closed for over one year. The Rent Controller and Appellate Authority after due appreciation of material on record have recorded a finding of fact that respondent has paid rent till October, 1992. He has not paid rent from November, 1992. The respondent has projected the case that since January, 1993, petitioner refused to accept the rent. In other words, even as per respondent rent from January, 1993 onwards was not paid by him to the petitioner. The petitioner has failed to prove that rent at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month is due to him from respondent from January, 1992 onwards. The findings recorded by the two Courts below that rent at the rate of Rs.250/- per month is due and payable by respondent from November, 1992 onwards are in consonance with the evidence. The scope of revision is very limited. The impugned judgment has not shown to be perverse nor the view taken in the impugned judgment can be said to be impossible view. The learned Appellate Authority and learned Rent Controller have rightly appreciated the material on record. There is no merit in the revision. 7. IN view of above, revision fails and is accordingly dismissed.