Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1450 (HP)

Udho Ram v. Jitender Kumar

2015-10-09

RAJIV SHARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 27.9.2004 passed by the learned Appellate Authority (II), Solan in Rent Appeal No. 7-S/14 of 2003. 2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondent filed eviction petition against the petitioner under section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. Case of the respondent is that he is landlord of Prem Chand building situate in Ward No.5, The Mall, Solan. Petitioner was tenant in the demised premises comprising of one room shop measuring about 26x12 feet on a rent of Rs. 1,000/- per month. Petitioner was in arrears of rent since April, 1998 and previous rent was paid vide receipt dated 2.4.1998. Petition for eviction of the petitioner has been sought on the grounds of arrears of rent. 3. Petition was contested by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, rent of the shop was Rs. 700/- per annum. The rent was increased to Rs. 5,000/- per annum. The rent upto 31.3.1997 has been paid vide receipt dated 1.4.1997. He has also paid rent upto August, 2000. 4. Issues were framed by the Rent Controller on 10.7.2001. Rent Controller gave findings that rent of the tenanted premises was proved to be only Rs. 5,000/- per annum. The petition was allowed on ground of arrears of rent with effect from 1.4.1998 to 31.3.2003 to the extent of Rs. 25,500/- with costs and interest @ 12% per annum. Landlord filed an appeal against the order dated 17.3.2003 before the Appellant Authority-II, Solan. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and petitioner was held to be in arrears of rent @ Rs. 12,000/- per annum. An order of eviction of the petitioner from the premises on the ground of non-payment of rent was passed in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner. However, order was directed not to be executable if upto date arrears of rent from 1.4.1998 onwards till date @ Rs. 12,000/- per annum alongwith interest @ 9% per annum was deposited with the Rent Controller. 5. Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Senior Advocate, has vehemently argued the appellate authority has wrongly relied upon Ex.DX-4 and Ex.DX-5. According to him, initially the rent was Rs. 700/- per annum and thereafter the same has been enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- per annum. His client has never agreed to pay Rs. 5. Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Senior Advocate, has vehemently argued the appellate authority has wrongly relied upon Ex.DX-4 and Ex.DX-5. According to him, initially the rent was Rs. 700/- per annum and thereafter the same has been enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- per annum. His client has never agreed to pay Rs. 12000/- per annum as rent to the landlord with effect from 1.4.1998. 6. Mr. Rajnish K. Lall has supported the judgment dated 27.9.2004 rendered by the appellate authority. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the order and judgment passed by the authorities below. 8. Landlord has appeared as PW-1. He has deposed that he was owner of the shop in question. Udho Ram was inducted as tenant. Rent of the premises was Rs. 1,000/- with effect from 1.4.1998. He has been paid only a sum of Rs. 12,000/- towards rent with effect from 31.3.1998. Earlier rent was Rs. 5,000/- per annum. The rent was enhanced to Rs. 12000/- per annum after making necessary repairs in the premises. 9. Petitioner has appeared as RW-1. He has admitted that respondent was the landlord of the premises. He was Halwai by profession. He was inducted tenant in the year 1964. He was earlier paying Rs. 700/- per annum and thereafter the rent was enhanced from 1991 to Rs. 5,000/- per annum. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he has paid Rs. 12,000/- on 1.4.1998. He could not state whether the signatures on mark ‘X’ at point ‘A’ were his signatures since it was a photocopy. 10. RW-2 Vijay Mohan Singha has deposed that he was also tenant of Jitender Kumar. 11. RW-3 Khem Singh has deposed that Udho Ram used to pay Rs. 5000/- per annum as rent. However, Jitender Kumar asked him to pay Rs. 12,000/- since he was in need of Rs. 12,000/-. In his cross-examination, he has admitted the signatures of Udho on Ex.DX-4 and Ex.DX-5. 12. Petitioner was inducted as tenant by the landlord. Initially, the rent of the premises was Rs. 700/- per annum. It was enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- per annum. However, the same was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 12,000/- per annum as is evident from Annexure Ex.DX-5. Petitioner has signed the receipt though while appearing as RW-1 he has deposed that he was not certain whether he has signed the same or not. 700/- per annum. It was enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- per annum. However, the same was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 12,000/- per annum as is evident from Annexure Ex.DX-5. Petitioner has signed the receipt though while appearing as RW-1 he has deposed that he was not certain whether he has signed the same or not. RW-2 Vijay Mohan Singha has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that receipts Ex.DX-4 and Ex.DX-5 were signed by Udho Ram. The version of the tenant that since the landlord was in urgent need of Rs. 12,000/-, he paid the same vide Ex. DX-5 cannot be believed. It has come in the evidence of PW-1 that necessary repairs of the premises were undertaken and thereafter the rent was increased. No tangible evidence has been placed on record by the tenant that his signatures were obtained on blank papers. It is evident from the phraseology employed in Ex.DX-5 that sum of Rs. 12,000/- was received as rent for the period with effect from 1.7.1997 to 31.3.1998. Rather tenant has made admission against his own interest that he has paid a sum of Rs. 12,000/- per annum as rent. Tenant has failed to prove that a sum of Rs. 12,000/- was paid as an advance rent beyond 1.4.1998 to 31.3.2000. It was duly proved by the landlord that tenant was in arrears of rent with effect from 1.4.1998 @ 12,000/- per annum. Landlord has duly proved that rent was Rs. 12,000/- per annum and not Rs. 5,000/-, as claimed by the tenant. 13. Accordingly, in view of the analysis and discussion made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. Petitioner is directed to deposit arrears of rent as per the order of the appellate authority with the Rent Controller, Solan within 30 days from today with effect from 1.4.1998 till date with interest @ 12% failing which he shall be liable to be evicted from the suit premises. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.