1. Challenge is to order dated 28.4.2014 of the Rent Controller, Ludhiana whereby assessment of provisional rent payable by the tenant has been made.
2. Neither execution of rent note on 15.12.2010 nor the rate of rent to be `7,500/- per month in terms thereof, is in dispute. Arrears of rent have been claimed w.e.f. 1.1.2011. Respondent contesting the claim took up a stand that said rent up to March, 2012 already stood paid. To support his claim, the petitioner-tenant had made averments that he had sent two separate money orders of `.5,000/- and of `2,500/- in April to Smt. Kamla Ahluwalia and claims that presumption should be drawn that rent of earlier period stood cleared.
3. Very deftly, the petitioner - tenant in his written statement avoided to mention the dates on which the two money orders had been sent by him, he had also failed to show that the money sent by the two money orders was accepted by the addressee as rent for April, 2012 and could not produce any Mohan Brij 2014.05.29 17:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh evidence that rent from 1.1.2011 stood paid. Support sought from D.R. Puri and Others Versus Puran Chand, 1985(1) All India Rent Control Journal 492, an authority of Coordinate Bench of this Court does not come to rescue of the petitioner-tenant because in this cited authority, it was an admitted case that the rent for subsequent period had been paid and had been accepted as such and thus a presumption was drawn that rent for earlier period had also been paid. There is no such admission on the part of the non-applicant/respondent-landlord that any such rent for April 2012 had been paid by the tenant. The Rent Controller was right in observing that onus to establish due payment of arrears of rent was upon the tenant and the same had not been discharged.
4. In view of very clear and well written order of the Rent Controller wherein clear finding has been given against the tenant verdicting his failure to prove that the rent had been paid since 1.1.2011, there is no merit in the revision petition.
5. Dismissed.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes Mohan Brij 2014.05.29 17:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
Comments