Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.

This is tenant's revision petition challenging the impugned judgment dated 4.12.2012 of the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal of the petitioner whereby the order dated 13.12.2011 of the Rent Controller has been affirmed.

The respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition against the tenant on two grounds i.e non payment of rent w.e.f. 1.1.2001 @ Rs.800/per month and that the petitioner has made material alterations which have resulted into diminishing the value and utility of the demised premises in question.

Upon notice, the petitioner-tenant appeared and filed written statement raising various preliminary objections admitting that he was inducted as a tenant by the co-owners with the consent of each other. It was specifically stated by the petitioner that he had paid the rent till date. However, the respondent was not issuing the receipts. The petitioner further denied that any structural changes in the premises in dispute were made by him. All other material averments were denied and dismissal of the petition was sought.

In support of his case, the respondent-landlord stepped into the witness box as PW1. On the other hand, the appellant-tenant stepped into the witness box as RW1 and his evidence was closed by the order of the Court. The appellant-tenant also tendered into evidence copies of the receipts as Ex.R1 to R11.

Under issue No.1, it was held that there was nothing on record on the basis of which it could be taken that rent of the demised premises regarding disputed period has been paid. Resultantly, it was held that the petitioner was in arrears of rent. It was also observed that the petitioner has taken a false plea that entire amount of rent has been paid but there is no rent receipt. Under issue No.2, it was held that since the petitioner was in arrears of rent, he was liable to be evicted.

The relevant paragraphs of the order of the Rent Controller reads thus:

“After hearing the rival contention raised by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the file carefully, this Court does not find any substance in the argument as advanced by learned counsel for the respondent whereas the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner carries substance. The present rent petition has been filed on 7.2.2007. The rent has been claimed w.e.f. 1.1.2001 at the rate of Rs.800/per month when the rent petition has been filed on 7.2.2007. The rent would be due upto 31.12.2006. The rate of rent in this case is not disputed. Now it is required to be seen as to whether the rent has been deposited already or not. There is only photostat copies of some receipts, which are only been marked as Ex.R1 to R11. The original has been claimed to be in possession of the respondent but the same has not been produced on record. Otherwise, perusal of the receipts in question does not reveal that it is qua the rent of demised premises or not. Moreover, these receipts are not for Rs.800/each. Rather these are of Rs.500/each.

In the given facts and circumstances of the case, no reliance can be placed upon such like receipts. Apart from this, there nothing on the record on the basis of which it can be taken that the rent of the demised premises regarding disputed period has been paid. Resultantly, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the respondent is in arrears of rent.”

Appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide impugned judgment and decree dated 4.12.2012.

The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment reads thus:

“Both the points are taken up together to avoid repetition of discussion. In case we go through the pleadings of the parties, the petitioner in his petition has demanded arrears of rent with effect from 01.01.2001, whereas the petition was filed on 07.02.2007. Therefore, as observed by the learned Rent Controller, the respondent was liable to prove the payment of arrears of