Hira Lall vs Prem Chand
1998 Latest Caselaw 511 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. The appellants in the second appeal assail the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 26.11.1984, by which he dismissed the appellants petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the D.R.C. Act, hereinafter referred to as the "Act", while issuing notice to the D.D.A. under v Section 14(1) of the Act on the ground under Section 14(1)(k) of the Act.

2. The Additional Rent Controller held that by notice of demand, appellants demanded rent at an exaggerated rate of Rs.142/- per month, which vitiated the notice itself and hence declined to grant any relief on the ground of non-payment of rent. The appellants assailed the order dated 26.11.1984, before the Rent Control Tribunal. The learned Rent Control Tribunal after carefully analysing the evidence held that the rent was Rs.42/- per month and not Rs.142/-, as claimed by the appellants in the notice of demand. The learned Rent Control Tribunal also held that demand of excessive amount of notice did not render it invalid and the respondent/tenant was bound to lender the amount recoverable within two months. In the result the Rent Control Tribunal set aside the order of the Additional Rent Controller, dismissing the eviction petition under Clause (a) of Section 14(1) of the Act and passed an order under Section 15(1) of the Act. This being a case of first default, the Rent Control Tribunal directed the deposit of arrears of rent @ Rs.42/- per month and upon the rent being so deposited, granted the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act.

3. In the present appeal, the appellants are assailing the order directing payment @ Rs.42/- per month. The case of the appellants in brief is that it purchased the property in the year 1976, from the previous landlord. He commenced re-construction and renovations of the building in January 1979 and completed the same in December 1979. The respondent was tenant @ Rs.42/- per month in occupation of a shop under the previous landlord. The appellants claim after the renovations and re-construction, parties negotiated and mutually agreed for the increase of rent from Rs.42/- to Rs.142/- per month. It is contended that the respondent in fact paid the rent for the months of December 1980 and January 1981 at the rate of Rs.142/- per month. The appellants claim to have sent a notice of demand dated 14,5.1981, which was duly replied to by the respondent vide his reply dated 21.5.1981. The appellants had produced on record two counter foils of receipts, Ex.A-7 and Ex.A-8, purporting to be the counter foils of receipts of rent for the months of December 1980 and January 1981, purportedly paid by the respondent. The appellants claim that the said counter foils of receipts were duly signed by the respondent and Were evidence of the rent having been last paid @ Rs.142/- per month.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.V.M.Issar, has argued that the respondent had duly in his evidence admitted that receipts used to be issued for the rent paid. Respondent, according to him, has wrongfully withheld the originals of the said receipts. Respondent having admitted the issuance of receipts against payment of rent, an adverse inference ought to be drawn under Section 114, illustration (g) of the Indian Evidence Act, against the respondent for withholding the best evidence i.e. original receipts at the rate of Rs.142/- per month. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent having not complied with notice of demand, the appellants were entitled to have an order under Section 15(1) of the Act passed, on the last paid rent viz., Rs.142/- per month. Learned counsel submitted that since the Additional Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal, had both reached the conclusion that the respondent had not paid the rent after February 1981, despite the notice of demand, a cause of action under Section 14(1)(a) had arisen and the respondent was entitled to an order for payment/deposit of rent under Section 15(1) @ Rs.142/- per month.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent, Mr.Qamarrudin, on the other hand has urged that the appellants had set up a false case of increase in rent on account of re-construction and renovations. It was pointed out that while the renovations commenced in January 1979, as per the appellants and were completed in December 1979, the appellants are claiming that the increase in rent took place for the months of December, 1980 and January 1981. Respondent has all through denied the signatures on the counter foils of the receipts, which are claimed to be forged ones. Respondent has tendered in evidence receipts for the payment of rent from 1.11.1989 to 1.12.1989. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that the balance receipts were not issued. Learned counsel also contends that the respondent had paid the rent of January 1981 and February 1981 @ Rs.42/- per month. The appellants had with the malafide intentions not issued the receipts. The respondent thereupon had remitted the rent through money order for the months of March and April, 1981 @ Rs.42/- per month. The same was refused by the appellants. The respondent had also sought receipts for the months of December 1980 and January 1981. Respondent claims to have sent rent for the months of January to April, 1981 amounting to Rs.126/-, again by money order on 28.5.1981, which was also refused. Respondent contends that in view of these remittances, it cannot be held "that there was non-compliance with the notice of demand. It is significant to notice here that the respondent had only placed the photocopies of the said receipts on record and had not proved the same in accordance with law, as required. Besides the respondent has not filed any cross-objections against the appellate order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, so as to question the order directing payment of rent at the rate of Rs.42/- per month and giving benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act.

6. I have carefully considered the rival submission, perused the pleadings and evidence on record, I find that the A.R.C and the Rent Control Tribunal were fully justified in reaching the conclusion that the appellants had failed to prove the mutual agreement for the increase in rent from Rs.42/- per month to Rs.142/- per month. It would be pertinent to notice that neither in the petition nor in the notice of demand, did the appellant set up a case of rent having been increased from Rs.42/- to Rs. 142/-per month on account of the renovations and re-construction in the building. The petition as well as notice of demand and even the replication are totally silent on this aspect. It is only during the evidence that the appellants elicited an admission from the respondent that there were renovations and re- construction done by the appellants. Significantly, renovations and re-construction are stated to have been completed in December, 1979 and the rental increase even as per the appellant is from December, 1980. It is highly improbable that respondent would agree to rent increase 12 months after the alleged re-construction/renovations. Moreover, there is no document* or agreement regarding such increase. Respondent has categorically denied any rent increase or the alleged mutual agreement. There is also no agreement in the submission of the appellant's counsel that an adverse inference be drawn on account of non- production of the original of the counter foils for the months of December 1980 and January 1981. Firstly, the appellants have not produced or proved any notice sent to the other side for production of the original rent receipts at the rate of Rs.142/- per month. Besides, the appellants himself had produced only two counter foils and hot any other counter foils of receipts for earlier periods, which would enable a comparison of the signatures of the respondent on the said counter foils. The appellants also failed to examine any hand-writing expert to prove that the said counter foils were signed by the respondent by comparisons with admitted signatures. The Rent Control Tribunal has lucidly discussed the evidence and reached the conclusion that the appellants' case of rent having been increased to Rs.142/- per month by mutual agreement is not believable and held that the rent was and continued to be Rs.42/- per month. I see no ground to interfere with the findings, as recorded by the Rent Control Tribunal As noticed earlier, the Rent Control Tribunal has set aside the order of the Additional Rent Controller, dismissing the petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act, holding that even if an exaggerated amount was demanded in the notice of demand, the same would not vitiate the demand and the respondent/tenant continued to be liable to pay the admitted rent. Reference may be invited to the decision of this Court in Shri Ram Sarup v. Shri Sultan Singh etc. (1977 (2) All India Rent Control Journal 553, wherein it was held that a notice of demand, even though claiming rent at a higher rate or the amount of arrears at a greater figure than the amount actually due, can be treated as the notice for the rent legally recoverable and the tenant would have the liability to pay at least the admitted rent.

7. I am in agreement with the findings of the Rent Control Tribunal It may also be noted that the appellants had claimed similar increase in respect of another tenant, Sh. Mohkam Singh. A common order was passed in the two case. However, the second appeal filed by the appellants/landlord against respondent/tenant, Sh.Mohkam Singh was withdrawn, since Sh.Mohkam Singh had surrendered the possession of the premises to the appellants/landlord.

8. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed and the order of the Rent Control Tribunal as passed, is affirmed.