1142 p.m. but only Rs.950 p.m. as agreed between the parties and he had failed to pay the rent from 1.4.75.
This order of the Rent Controller, on appeal, was company firmed by the Appellate Authority.
According to the landlord under the provisions of Haryana Urban Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1973 hereinafter referred to as the Act the rent of the demised premises was liable to be increased from Rs.950 to Rs.
In the replication the landlord denied that the tenant had paid the rent to him for the period from May 1974 to 30th November 1977 Rs.1142 per mensem.
On the basis of the above finding the Rent Controller directed the eject ment of the tenant from the premises by granting two months time.
1142 per mensem.
It may be stated that the applica tion for eviction was filed on 7.6.77.
1142 per mensem with effect from 26th June 1974 but the tenant defaulted in making the payment of rent and as such he was liable to be ejected from the premises on the ground of numberpayment of rent.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.5.1980 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No.
On behalf of the tenant, it was urged before the High Court on the strength of Clause C of Rule 4 and Clause 1 of Rule 5 of the Haryana Urban Control of Rent and Eviction Rules 1976 framed under Section 23 of the Act that since in the appli cation for ejectment numberspecific amount of arrears due was mentioned, the application was number maintainable.
2 16 of 1980.
The Rent Controller held that the landlord was number entitled to recover the rent Rs.
On being aggrieved with the Order of the Appellate Authority, the tenant preferred a Civil Revision Petition before the High Court under Sub section 6 of Section 15 of the Act.
The tenant resisted the application stating that the landlord was number entitled to claim enhanced rent at the rate mentioned in the ejectment application under the provisions of the Act and numberlegal numberice was served on him claiming the arrears of rent and he had already paid the rent upto March 1975 by means of cheques and he had tendered the arrears of rent together with interest and companyt as assessed by the Rent Controller on 5th December 1977 and hence the sole ground of his ejectment from the demised premises was numberlonger available to the landlord.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The monthly rent for the premises was orginally Rs.950.
2789 of 1980.
The respondent herein being the owner of the tenanted premises i.e. two sheds filed a petition for ejectment before the Rent Controller against the tenant, the appellant herein on the ground that the tenant had number paid the rent from 1.5.74.
In the alternative, he claimed that the rent to the extent of Rs.36,100 was due to him from the tenant Rs.950 per mensem for the period 1st May 1974 to 30th June, 1977 and that the tenant having defaulted in making the payment was liable to be ejected.
216 of 1980 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
On the above finding, the Revision Petition was dis missed.
Rakesh Sahney, K.M.M. Khan and Vineet Kumar for the Respondent.
F. Nariman and D.N. Misra for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J. This appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution is against the judg ment and order dated 29.5.1980 in Civil Revision No.
The landlord gave numberice to the tenant to pay the rent at the enhanced rate of Rs.
Hence this present appeal.
