The entries in the house tax assessment register are not conclusive about the rate of rent, and the finding of the lower courts based on evidence cannot be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction.

Hemant Gupta, J.

1. The landlord are in revision petition aggrieved against the order passed by the Courts below whereby the ejectment petition filed by the petitioners on the ground that the tenant is in arrears of rent was dismissed.

2. The only question which survives between the parties is what is the rate of rent. As per petitioners, the rate of rent is Rs. 185/- per month, the rate at which the tenant was paying rent to the petitioners, in earlier ejectment petitions. On the other hand, both the Courts below have held that the rate of rent is Rs. 70/- per month as per stand of the respondent.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon Exhibit A-6, entries from the house tax assessment register, to contend that the rate of rent is Rs. 185/- per month and that bald oral statement of the tenant is not trustworthy on the basis of which any finding can be returned that the rate of rent is Rs. 70/- per month. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has also referred to the previous judgment between the parties, Exhibit AA, to contend that the rate of rent is Rs. 185/- per month.

4. However, I am unable to accept the arguments raised by learned Counsel for the petitioners. It is well settled that the entries in the house tax assessment register are prepared by the Municipal Authorities for the purpose of levy of house tax but such entries are not conclusive about the rate of rent as it is not prepared by the parties to the dispute. Both the Courts below have appreciated the entire evidence to return a finding that the rate of rent is Rs. 70/- per month. Such finding is based upon appreciation of evidence which cannot be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction merely by taking a different view on appreciation of evidence again.

5. The argument that in the previous judgment the rate of rent was held to be Rs. 185/- per month is not factually made out. In that judgment, Issue No. 1 was regarding rate of rent but it was held that the same is rendered redundant and was decided against the petitioner. Since there is no finding on the rate of rent in that judgment, no benefit can be claimed by the petitioners on the basis of that judgment.

6. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded by the Courts below which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is dismissed.