High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCR/2054/2014dismissed

Raghbir Singh & ORS v. Darshana

2018-09-10Mrs. Justice Anita Chaudhry2 pages

Civil Revision No.2054 of 2014 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2054 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Order: 10.09.2018 Raghbir Singh and others ..Petitioners

Versus

Darshana ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present:

Ms. Sandeepta Mehta, Advocate, for the petitioners.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral) C.M.No.5331-CII-2014 Allowed as prayed for.

C.M.No.5332-CII-2014 Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 09 days in re-filing the revision petition.

For reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the delay of 09 days in re-filing the revision petition is condoned.

Application is allowed.

MAIN Landlords-petitioners are in the revision petition against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller affirmed in appeal by the learned Appellate Authority, dismissing the eviction petition. The only ground which survives for consideration is "whether the tenant has not paid the arrears of rent from March, 2004?" NARESH KUMAR 2018.09.24 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Civil Revision No.2054 of 2014 (O&M) -2It is not disputed that the learned Rent Controller in accordance with the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, 2002(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 514 had assessed the rate of rent and the arrears from July, 2007. It is not in dispute that there is no written rent note and the rent was paid without issuing any receipt.

Both the courts on appreciation of the evidence have found that the rent has been paid upto June, 2007 @ Rs.500/- per month. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the landlords got a notice issued on 17.01.2017, calling upon the defendant-tenant to pay rent, since March, 2004.

This aspect has been considered by both the courts below. However, courts have held that the landlords-petitioners have failed to prove that the tenant was in arrears of rent for more than 3 years. The courts have drawn conclusion on the basis of evidence, which is neither shown to be perverse nor result of any misreading of unimpeachable evidence. Hence, there is no good ground to interfere.

The revision petition is dismissed.

September 10, 2018 (ANIL KSHETARPAL) nt JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No NARESH KUMAR 2018.09.24 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh