CIVIL APPEAL 5003 of 1991 on 30 November 1986

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?judgment ?

2. To be referred to the reporters or not ?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?

K.Kannan, J.(Oral)

1. Mr. Prashant Vashist, Advocate is present in Court and seeks for time by saying that his senior counsel Mr.V.K.Jain,Advocate is not ready. The matter pertains to a rent petition filed on15.10.1990 before the Rent Controller, Kurukshetra and the CivilRevision is pending since 1991. Having regard to the long pendency ofthe case, I reject the plea and deem it appropriate to dispose of the caseon merits on perusal of the records.

2. The rent petition had been filed under Section 13 ofHaryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 seeking forejectment of the tenant on three grounds namely (i) Personal necessity ofthe landlord for the use of the property by the son; (ii) Change of user of Civil Revision No.5003 of 1991

property that shop which was let for non-residential purpose has beenchanged for residential purpose; and (iii) Non-payment of rent from01.12.1983 to 30.11.1986 at the rate of Rs.150/- per month plus housetax amounting to Rs.540/- with interest and cost. The ground thatsustained the order of eviction was only the issue regarding non-paymentof rent in the manner contended by the landlord but the other twogrounds of eviction were rejected both by the Rent Controller and theAppellate Authority.

3. The contention of the tenant had been that he waspaying the rent only to the petitioner's husband Gainda Ram and therewas no landlord tenant relationship between the petitioner and therespondent and the two Courts below referred to the fact that thedocument purchased had been in the name of the petitioner and that thepetitioner as well as the husband were both examined as AW-1 and AW-2 to state about the subsisting relationship as landlord and tenant and thatthe tenant knew that the amounts were for some time received by thehusband only on behalf of his wife. The Court found from the evidencethat all the witnesses and the document of purchase that stood in thename of the landlord to be offering the best of supporting evidence thatthe landlord tenant relationship had been established. On the issuerelating to payment of rent the tenant relied on rent receipt, a copy ofwhich was marked as R-1. The Courts below had given at least threereasons as to why the document could not be believed: (1) It was notconfronted either to AW-1 or AW-2 when they were in the witness box.(2) The original receipt itself was not produced and no reason had been Civil Revision No.5003 of 1991

given for production of only a photocopy; and (3) It was not even filedalong with written statement. The Appellate Court had rendered anobservation that the document itself looked suspicious. When the receiptwhich the tenant had relied on to show the discharge of liability was notestablished and there was a clear finding that the rent had not been paidwithin 15 days after the expiry of time which was fixed in the agreementof tenancy or within a period of 15 days of the first hearing of theapplication for ejectment after due service, the consequence was that thetenant was liable for ejectment. The tenant had brought himself to anunenviable situation that he now faces by denying the jural relationshipwith the landlord and further setting up a false receipt of payment of rentwhich was rejected.

4. There is no scope for interference in the revision. Therevision petition is accordingly dismissed.

28.04.2009sanjeev

(K.KANNAN)JUDGE