A landlord who is found to have lied about the grounds for eviction cannot be granted an eviction order.

Ashok Bhan, J.

1. Present revision petition has been filed by the tenant. Facts shortly stated are that property bearing Municipal No. 506/1 (shop situated at Panipat) is owned by Bhagwan Dass landlord-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the landlord). The same was let out by him to Krishan Chand respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the tenant). Faquir Chand, the other petitioner is the father of Krishan Chand.

2. Landlord filed ejectment petition on the plea that it had let out the premises to the tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 400/- per month and the tenant had failed to pay the arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.9.1981 to 30.4.1984. Tenant had impaired the value and utility of the demise shop, that Krishan Chand-petitioner had sub let the demise premises to his father Faquir Chand, petitioner without the permission of the landlord.

3. In the written statement filed, allegations of impairment value and utility of the shop of sub-letting was denied. It was averred that rent had already been paid for the period from 1.9.1983 to 30:6.1984. Arrears for the period from 1.9.1981 to 30.8.1983 were tendered in Court alongwith interest at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month as the case of the tenant was that rent was Rs. 200/- per month and not Rs. 400/ per month as claimed by the landlord. Replication was filed. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-

1. What is rate of rent? OPP

2. Whether respondents are liable to be evicted from the premises in dispute on the grounds mentioned in the petition? OPA

3. Whether present petition is a counter blast to suit for permanent injunction filed by Faquir Chand respondent. If so, to what effect? OPR.

4. Whether petition is malafide? OPR

5. Whether petition has not been filed according to rules and particulars. If so, to what effect? OPR.

6.ReIief.

4. Rent Controller ordered the ejectment of the tenant on all the three counts. It was held that tenant had sub-let the premises; he had impaired the value and utility of the building and further that the rate of rent was Rs. 400/- per month and the tenant had failed to deposit the arrears of rent.

5. Tenant being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. Appellate Authority reversed the findings of the Rent Controller on three counts. It held that there was no impairment value and utility of the buildings, that Krishan Chand had not sub-let the premises in dispute to Faquir Chand and that the rent was Rs. 200/- per month and not Rs. 400/- per month as claimed by the landlord. These three findings have not been challenged before me. Appellate Authority maintained the order of ejectment on the ground that the tenant had failed to tender the arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.9.1981 to 31.8.1983 as he had failed to produce any receipt to evidence the payment of rent by him to the landlord. Tenant being aggrieved has filed the present revision petition.

6. I have heard the counsel for the parties at length. It has already come in the earlier part of the judgment that findings recorded by the Appellate Authority regarding sub-letting, impairment value and utility of the building and the rate of rent have not been challenged before me. Landlord did not speak the truth with regard to the rate of rent, creation of sub-tenancy and impairment value and utility of the building. In these circumstances, appellate authority was not justified in believing the version of the landlord against the tenant. No doubt the initial burden was on the tenant to prove whether it had paid all the arrears of rent. He has categorically stated in his written statement that he had paid all the arrears of rent except for the period from 1.9.1983 to 30.6.1984, the rent for which was tendered by him in Court. Normally speaking, landlord would not sit quiet for a period of three years if the rent had not been paid to him for the said period. The landlord in the present case who had been disbelieved with regard to the rate of rent could not be be