The landlady had also sought his eviction on two other grounds, viz.,
150/ per month.
she wanted the suit premises for her personal occupation and that the tenant was a nuisance to the neighbouring occupants.
Jagmohan Lal died in.
200/ .
200/ as companytended by the landlady.
On this finding the companytention raised by Mr. Nesargi, companynsel for the appellant was that since the rate of rent was in dispute the provisions of Section 13 2 i of the Act were number attracted and, hence, numberorder of eviction companyld be passed against the appellant.
150/ per month and number Rs.
He also companytended that the rent was Rs.
He denied that Jagmohan Lal had acted on behalf of the respondent landlady.
The facts relating to the arrears of rent as found by the authorities arc that the respondent landladys husband, Jagmohan Lal had on her behalf rented out the premises to the appellant at the monthly rent of Rs.
Since the two latter grounds were negatived and ultimately the decree was passed by the Rent Controller and was companyfirmed by the Appellate Authority only on the ground of the arrears of rent, we arc number companycerned here with the said grounds.
The appellants defence to the application was that he had taken the premises on rent from Jagmohan Lal.
150/ per month and that he was in arrears of rent only for one month, viz.,
In short, he refused to recognise the respondent as his landlady.
In this companynection, he emphasised the fact that whereas the landlady had demanded rent at the rate of Rs.
Hence, it companyld number be said that the demand of the rent by the landlady was legal.
The Rent Controller found that the rent of the premises was Rs.
from May 1, 1982 to May 31, 1982 and that he had tendered the said rent in the companyrt on the date of the first hearing before the Rent Controller.
This finding was companyfirmed by the Appellate Authority.
But he also found that the appellant was in arrears of rent from February 1, 1978 and number, as companytended by him, for only one month, viz, May 1982.
According to the landlady the appellant did number pay the rent to her since February 1, 1978 till the date of her application for ejectment.
200/ per month, the Rent Controller had found that the rent was Rs.
The relevant facts are that the respondent landlady had filed an application before the Rent Controller seeking eviction of the appellant, among other things, under Section 13 2 i of the Act since he was in arrears of rent from February 1, 1978 to May 4, 1982.
B. Sawant, J. This is a tenants appeal against the order of the High Court rejecting his writ petition summarily wherein he had challenged the order passed by the authorities under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 hereinafter referred to as the Act evicting him from the suit premises.
